[registrars] Deletes Task Force meeting

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

fellow constituancy members

I would ask that you please review and provide input to our registrar TF
representative tim ruiz as soon as possible
(note the nov 22 date for constituancy position statements)

best wishes

ken stubbs
registrar names council representative

> ---
> (Minutes follow below)
> ---
> DELETES TASK FORCE, CONFERENCE CALL NOTES
> November 15, 2002   14:00 UTC
>
> I. PARTICIPANTS
>
> The following task force members were present on the call:
>
> Registry constituency: Jordyn Buchanan:Jordyn.Buchanan@Registrypro.com
> Business Constituency: Bret Fausett: fausett@lextext.com
> NCDNHC: Adam Peake: ajp@glocom.ac.jp
> IP constituency: Jane Mutimear: jane.mutimear@twobirds.com
> ISPCP constituency: Maggie Mansourkia: Maggie.Mansourkia@wcom.com
> GA: John Berryhill: john@johnberryhill.com
> Registrar constituency: Tim Ruiz: tim@godaddy.com
>
> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse was unable to participate due to difficulties
> connecting him to the conference bridge.
>
> II. AGENDA
>
> The interim chair, Jordyn Buchanan, provided an informal agenda which
> included a discussion of the issues identified in the deletes issues
paper,
> and electing a permanent chair.
>
> Brett Fausett requested a discussion of the schedule and process governing
> the task force's work.  This was discussed prior to the other elements of
> the agenda.
>
> III. DISCUSSION OF PROCESS
>
> Buchanan outlined the timeline for the task force's work, which he
indicated
> was devised in accordance with the new GNSO PDP.  The original schedule is
> as follows:
>
>        1. task force members from each constituency due 17 Oct 2002 (10
days
>           after 7 Oct 02)
>        2. open public comments on the topic for 20 days beginning 14 Oct
>           2002
>        3. constituency position statements due 8 Nov 2002 (35 days after 3
>           Oct 02)
>        4. Preliminary Task Force Report due 15 Nov 2002 - Task Force
Report
>           due 25 Nov 2002
>        5. Public comment period from 25 Nov 2002 until 16 Dec 2002 (20
days)
>        6. Final Task Force Report due 26 Dec 2002 - Council to review
report
>           at meeting around 5 Jan 2003
>        7. Board Report due around 10 Jan 2003
>
> Buchanan indicated that the full membership had not been announced until
the
> Shanghai Names Council meeting, and that as a result the deadlines for
item
> #3 and #4 had already been missed.  He proposed a new deadline of November
> 22 for constituency position statements, and an adjustment of the
subsequent
> dates accordingly.  Fausett indicated that the short timeframes in the PDP
> were supposed to be made possible due to support from ICANN staff, which
was
> not yet available.  Buchanan agreed, but indicated that the task force
> should try to adhere to the timelines as closely as possible.
>
> Members were polled to indicated whether or not constituency statements
> would be feasible by November 22.  Several members indicated that they
> thought their constituencies (IPC, ISPCP, Registrars) would be able to
> provide statements by that date.  Fausett indicated that Business
> Constituency bylaws require that statements be made available for comment
> for at least 10 days prior to becoming official; Adam Peake indicated that
> it might be difficult to obtain a NCDHC statement within a week, but that
he
> thought a statement from the constituency leaders was feasible.  The
> deadline of November 22 for constituency statements was retained, with the
> understanding that they might be amended after initial submission.
>
> IV. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
>
> Discussion was broken into the four issues presented into the deletes
issues
> paper.
>
> Issue 1:  Uniform delete practice after domain name expiry by registrars
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It was generally agreed that it would be desirable for non-renewed domains
> to be consistently deleted by registrars within the 45 day auto-renew
grace
> period.  Tim Ruiz indicated that this would probably be acceptable to
> registrars, although more specific requirements with specific dates would
be
> more difficult to implement.  Buchanan also indicated that it would be
> difficult to force registrars to carry names beyond their original
> expiration, as this would require them to provide services that they had
not
> been paid for.
>
> Jane Mutimear pointed to the discussion of names being deleted while the
> subject of a UDRP dispute.  There was general consensus that this was not
> desirable, but neither was forcing registrars to carry domain names that
> were no longer being paid for.  Mutimear agreed to provide a proposed
> solution for the problem to the task force by the next conference call.
>
> The issue was raised of registrars attempting to resell names during the
> renew grace period.  Buchanan indicated that he thought this was not
within
> the terms of reference for the task force, and that the problem was
largely
> confined to registrars selling names outside of the grace periods.  Ruiz
> indicated that some registrars might try to sell names after a fraudulent
> registration had occurred (in which case only a five day grace period
would
> apply).  Generally, it was thought that the re-sale issue was beyond the
> scope of the deletes task force, but that the issue of deletions after a
> fraudulent registration was discussed further.  The current limited add
> grace period has the undesirable effect of forcing registrars to carry a
> name without being compensated for their services.  Buchanan indicated
that
> this issue was not within the scope of the terms of reference, but that
the
> task force could request an expansion of its scope to the names council.
> Buchanan requested that members discuss this possibility with their
> constituencies before further task force action was taken.
>
> The issue was raised of fraudulent deletion or deletion due to registrar
> error.  Buchanan and Mutimear both contended that this was dealt with by
the
> redemption grace period.  Buchanan requested that if anyone wished to
> discuss this issue further, that they make the case that the redemption
> grace period did not provide sufficient protection.
>
> John Berryhill indicated that some registrants did not realize that they
> needed to renew their domain names.  It was the general consensus that
> registrars providing good notice of their policies regarding deletion
would
> be helpful.  Registrars could indicate that domains would be deleted if
not
> renewed, as well as public notice of the timeframes in which they delete
> names.  This would largely ameliorate the need for more specific
> requirements of deletion policy within the 45 day auto-renew grace period.
>
> Issue 2: Deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> It was generally thought that there was potential duplication of effort on
> this issue with the Whois task force.  Buchanan indicated that a liaison
> from the Whois task force should be participating in the deletes task
force,
> and that the current chairs had been selected as interim liaisons.
>
> To avoid overlapping work effort with the Whois task force, it was
generally
> agreed that the deletes task force should focus on how deletes are handled
> once the decision has been made to remove a domain, while the Whois task
> force should focus on the mechanism that triggers the renewal.
>
> Two general areas of concern were discussed:
>
> 1. Mutimear indicated that IPC was concerned that domains deleted because
of
> inaccurate Whois information should not simply be allowed to be undeleted
> via the Redemption Grace Period, which could allow registrants to treat
> Whois-related deletions as a "revolving door" with no real consequences.
It
> was generally agreed that this was undesirable, and two theoretical
> solutions were proposed:  first, that names could not be undeleted through
> the redemption grace period unless the domain was updated with correct
Whois
> data; or second, that the redemption grace period would only apply to a
> domain the first time it was deleted due to Whois accuracy concerns.  Ruiz
> was tasked with requesting registrars to provide feedback about which
> mechanism was preferred.
>
> 2. Ruiz indicated that registrars were concerned about proper notice being
> provided to registrants prior to deletion, and that current 15 day notice
> provisions might be insufficient, especially to international registrars.
> No specific agreements or recommendations were made on this point.
>
> Issue 3: Registry delete process
> --------------------------------
>
> It was generally agreed that the redemption grace period provided much of
> the transparency required by users and registrars.
>
> Buchanan raised the concern that this transparency might still result in
add
> storms of the sort that seriously impacted the VeriSign CNO registry in
> 2001.  As a result, registries might like to implement a re-registration
> system.  VeriSign's WLS was cited as an example.  Buchanan agreed to ask
the
> registry constituency for proposals on this topic.
>
> Issue 4: Reversal of renewal transactions
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Many participants seemed to think that this was not a serious problem with
> little impact on registrants.  Because the impact would be likely to be
felt
> most by registrars, Tim Ruiz agreed to ask the registrars constituency if
> they felt the issue needed to be addressed by the task force.
>
> V.  ELECTION OF CHAIR
> ---------------------
> Jordyn A. Buchanan was nominated by Tim Ruiz and seconded by Jane
Mutimear.
> No other candidates were nominated.  The members of the task force agreed
> that Buchanan should continue to act as chair.
>
> VI. NEXT MEETING
> ----------------
>
> The next meeting was scheduled for after the submission of constituency
> statements, on Monday, November 25 at 14:00 UTC.  Although the conference
> call service used for the first call seemed quite effective, various
members
> expressed concern that the non-commercial participants were the ones with
> the greatest difficulty accessing the call due to timing and expense
issues.
> Buchanan agreed to discuss with Bruce Tonkin and the DNSO Secretariat
> whether any DNSO facilities were available to facilitate participation.
>
> VI. ACTION ITEMS
> ----------------
> 1. Constituency statements due by November 22.
> 2. Buchanan: Request feedback from the registry constituency regarding
> proposed mechanisms for possible re-registrations services invoked once a
> domain name has been deleted.  Also discuss with Bruce Tonkin and the DNSO
> Secretariat what DNSO resources may be available to improve access and
> transparency for the task force.
> 3. Ruiz: Request feedback from registrar constituency on a) mechanisms for
> ensuring that the redemption grace period is not abused by registrants who
> provide incorrect Whois data; and b) whether registrars feel that a
> mechanism to reverse renewal transactions other than through the deletion
of
> domains is a serious issue that warrants the attention of this task force.
> 4: Mutimear: Propose a mechanism for preventing the deletion of names
during
> a UDRP dispute that does not create an unfair burden upon registrars.
>