I agree with Bret's comments and would be able to make a
conference call this week to discuss further.
Jane
-----Original Message-----
From:
Bret Fausett [mailto:fausett@lextext.com]
Sent: 13 April 2003 18:41
To: nc-deletes@dnso.org
Cc: Jordyn A.
Buchanan; Louis Touton; Dan Halloran; 'Dr Eberhard W. Lisse'; Gomes,
Chuck
Subject: Re: [nc-deletes] FW: [council]
Concerns Regarding Report of DeletesTask Force
Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> If
reasonable and limited flexibility is not build into the policy...
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.
-- Bret
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:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________