RE: [nc-deletes] Comments and impact statement

[Jane Mutimear <jane.mutimear@twobirds.com>]

Title: RE: [nc-deletes] Comments and impact statement

I agree with Tim that auto renewal (that a registrant has actually chosen rather than had thrust upon them as a default which they didn't spot) amounts to an explicit request to renew.

Jane

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
Sent: 29 January 2003 12:04
To: jordyn@register.com
Cc: jane.mutimear@twobirds.com; nc-deletes@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [nc-deletes] Comments and impact statement

Jordyn,

> I'm  a little leery of language requiring explicit renewal, because it
> seems reasonable that some registrars might have contracts with their
> registrants that allow for automatic renewal.

Perhaps it could be worded to indicate an explicit request to renew would include a prior arrangement to do it. It's still an explicit request, it just the timing that's different.

"... unless the registrant, through opt-in means, has agreed to allow the registrar to automatically renew the domain name."

Tim

 -------- Original Message --------
   Subject: Re: [nc-deletes] Comments and impact statement
   From: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@register.com>
   Date: Tue, January 28, 2003 9:44 pm
   To: Jane Mutimear <jane.mutimear@twobirds.com>

   Hi Jane:

   On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 04:08  PM, Jane Mutimear wrote:

   > Comments on draft (and apologies if some of these have already been
   > made - although I have tried to catch up):
   >
   > Intro:   delete additional "more critical" in first sentence
   >
   > 2.1;  3rd sentence - something's gone wrong - there are two many
   > words  before the first comma:  "This automatic In current
   > practice,"

   Good catches.  Thanks.

   > 2.3  We have Add Grace Period in caps but haven't mentioned it
   > before  now (in fact we explain what it is in 2.4).  We should
   > explain the  term first time we use it and then define it.  We
   > should do the same  with Renew Grace Period which we use for the
   > first time here.  If we  do this it might make our proposals (i) to
   > (iv) easier to follow. 

   I think this echoes Dr. Lisse's suggestion for a glossary.  Anyone
   want  to volunteer to make one?

   Do we feel like we need a glossary before we publish our draft report?

   > 3.1.1 - I like Tim's suggestion (which was in his impact statement)
   > to  replace the first sentence here as it makes it clearer.

   I added 3.1.2 to try and take Tim's suggestion into consideration.
   I'm  a little leery of language requiring explicit renewal, because it
   seems  reasonable that some registrars might have contracts with their

   registrants that allow for automatic renewal.  In fact, this might be
   desirable for many registrants as opposed to an affirmative
   requirement  to explicitly renew each year.

   > 3.2.3  Why did you fiddle with my wording?  The reason I liked my
   > more  verbose wording was because it made it clear that if the
   > complainant  doesn't cough up the renewal fee before the domain name
   > lapses, the  registrant just gets the normal grace period.  Now you
   > have to deduce  this.  I won't have a tantrum about this though.

   Sorry about that.  I think I've made this clearer in the next draft.

   > 3.2.5.3 - add "name" after domain in second line (and yes, I missed
   > this on my version)
   >
   > 3.2.7  I'm with John on this one - it confuses me - it makes me
   > think  that some of what went before does impact on the outcome of a
   > UDRP  decision.  Do we need it?

   Okay, you guys have convinced me.  The second sentence has been
   deleted.

   >
   > ------------------------------
   >
   > Draft Impact Statement of the Intellectual Property Constituency on
   > the report of the Deletes taskforce
   >
   >
   > ISSUE 1: determine whether a uniform delete process by gtld
   > registrars  following expiry is desirable, and if so, recommend an
   > appropriate  process.
   >
   > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION: 
   >
   > 1.      Domain names not explicitly renewed must be deleted by the
   > end  of the registrar's grace period.
   >
   > IMPACT ON IPC: This will give intellectual property owners more
   > certainty in relation to the treatment of their own and other's
   > domain  names when a renewal fee is not paid and is welcomed.
   >
   > 2.      Deletion/Renewal policies to be made clear at date of
   > registration and to be in a prominent place on the web site
   >
   > IMPACT ON IPC:  The IPC approves of registrants being put on notice
   > as  to the registrar's particular deletes policy and also support
   > the  requirement that the policy be made conspicuous on the website
   > of each  registrar, in order that registrants who inadvertently
   > permit their  domain names to lapse can easily locate the rules
   > which apply in order  to evaluate the status of their domain name.
   >
   > 3.      Domain names the subject of UDRP actions when lapsing will
   > be  capable of being renewed by the complainant to the UDRP action
   >
   > IMPACT ON IPC:  although it is relatively rare that domain names
   > lapse  during a UDRP complaint, this has happened on a number of
   > occasions.   In addition, a potential complainant under the current
   > system may wait  to bring its complaint until it knows whether or
   > not a domain has been  renewed, which may result in unnecessary
   > delay.  This proposal gives  certainty to trade mark owners wishing
   > to bring UDRP complaints  against domain names which are due to
   > expire relatively shortly, so as  to enable them to avoid the
   > scenario of a decision being rendered in  their favour in relation
   > to a domain name which is now owned by  another party.
   >
   > ISSUE 2:  determine whether a uniform delete process by gtld
   > registrars following a failure of a registrant to provide accurate
   > WHOIS information upon request is desirable, and if so, recommend an
   >  appropriate process.
   >
   > TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION:
   >
   > 1.      Domain names deleted for false WHOIS data will need to have
   > their WHOIS data verified before being able to take advantage of the
   >  Redemption Grace Period. 
   >
   > IMPACT ON IPC:  it is important to intellectual property rights
   > owners  that registrants of domain names who have their domain name
   > cancelled  because of false WHOIS data are not able to simply
   > register them with  the same or similarly false date via the RGP. 
   > Therefore, the IPC  welcomes the proposals.
   >
   >
   > Speak to everyone tomorrow
   >
   > Jane

________________________________________________________________________
BIRD & BIRD 
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. 
It contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged.  
Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it. Further, we make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to verify that this email and any attachments are free of viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which might be transferred by way of this e-mail. 
Please refer to http://www.twobirds.com/fsma.cfm for our regulatory position under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 of the United Kingdom. 
A full list of partners is available on request. 
Details of our offices are available from http://www.twobirds.com 

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________