RE: [nc-deletes] FW: [council] Concerns Regarding Report of DeletesTask Force
Title: RE: [nc-deletes] FW: [council] Concerns Regarding Report of DeletesTask Force
I agree with Bret's comments and would be able to make a conference call this week to discuss further.
Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Remember though that the uniform rule was suggested by the task force in order to stop what was believed to be an abusive/unfair registrar practice. The question is how to provide limited flexibility for a registrar without
(a) reopening the possibility of abuse; and/or (b) saddling ICANN Staff with an ambiguous or impossible to administer enforcement burden.
While I'm still reviewing the Staff report, I think the Staff recommendations can be easily reconciled with our report in at least three places.
First, I don't believe it was our intent to require a register to delete a domain name when the name was the subject of an administrative or legal proceeding and/or when the deletion would be in violation of law or an applicable court order. I think we can add language to make that clear, and such a carve-out would be relatively easy for ICANN to enforce.
Second, I also don't believe it was our intention to preclude a registrar from offering domain name registrations for free. Our real point was that a registrant should affirmatively indicate an intent to renew the registration beyond the previously agreed term. Most often, that intent is expressed by payment for a new term, but I see no reason why a registrar couldn't offer the renewal for free so long as the registrant takes some positive step to express agreement with that course of action. Rephrasing some of the paragraphs to replace payment-related words and phrases with things like "affirmative intention to renew" might solve this problem.
Finally, I don't believe we had intended to bind a registrar to the deletion policy it had posted on its web site for the entire term of its registrations. My assumption is that we simply wanted registrars to post their then current deletion policy, with an acknowledgment that such a policy might be updated or revised in the future. We can easily clarify that.
Those are three clarifications that I think are consistent with our original thinking and that a quick and non-controversial re-draft could probably resolve.
Perhaps we should schedule a quick conference call in advance of the NC meeting to discuss the Staff report.
P.S. I've trimmed the cc:s. If you think this message should go to a broader group though, feel free to forward it as you think appropriate.
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: