Re: [registrars] Deletes Task Force needs your input

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Tim,

I've been thinking further about the implications of (1) in light of the
comments that you've made here, those made by the IPC on the deletes list
and others that have been offered. It occurred to me that you've presented
us with an excellent example of why standardized practices are desirable at
a certain level within the policy stack. While it is important that
Registrars can each pursue their own business model, it is important for the
industry to have a certain level of predictability to fall back on. You've
re-affirmed for me how important it is that we craft these recommendations
with a strong focus on ensuring that we do what is good for the industry.


                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>
To: <Registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 7:45 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Deletes Task Force needs your input


> Attached is the RC draft position so far. It is based on the response, or
> lack thereof, to my request for input below. I will be submitting this to
> the Task Force by EOB tomorrow, November 22nd, as an informal statement
> based on current feedback that may change before a formal statement is
> adopted by the RC.
>
> Please let me know if you have any comments or questions. The next Task
> Force meeting is the morning of the 25th.
>
> Tim
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
>   Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 11:01 AM
>   To: Registrars@dnso.org
>   Subject: [registrars] Deletes Task Force needs your input
>   Importance: High
>
>
>   Ken has forwarded the full minutes from the initial meeting of the
Deletes
> TF. Our goal is to have formal constituency positions by November 22.
> However, we realize that may be difficult given the late start of the TF,
> and various constituency bylaws.
>
>   I would like to open up the discussion on these issues through
Wednesday.
> And then present a draft position based on these comments to the RC by
> Thursday the 21st. Some discussion may yet follow before we actually vote
to
> adopt a position, but it will give me some further basis for discussion
> during the November 22nd TF conf. call.
>
>   In particular, I need comments regarding 1.d, 1.e, 2.b, 3.b, and 4.a by
> our next meeting.
>
>   Rick, in regards to 3.b wasn't there an RC proposal at one time
regarding
> a round-robin reallocation method? Is a copy of that available?
>
>   To summarize the current situation:
>
>   Issue 1:  Uniform delete practice after domain name expiry by registrars
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   a. Domain names not explicitly renewed MUST be deleted by the end of the
> 45 day grace period.
>
>   b. Registrars may decide how they will deal with deletes during the 45
day
> grace period but MUST post their deletes policy on their site, perhaps as
> part of their registration agreement.
>
>   c. The issue reselling names during the 45 grace period appears to be
> outside the scope of this task force.
>
>   d. Extending the 5 day grace period for Adds was discussed, but it was
> felt this may also be outside the scope of this task force. If the
> constituencies felt otherwise, we may ask the NC to extend our scope.
>
>   e. The issue of how to deal with expiring names that are the subject of
a
> UDRP dispute is yet to be addressed.
>
>   Issue 2: Deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy
>   ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>   a. Given that this issue overlaps with the work of the Whois task force,
> it was general felt that this task force should deal only with what
happens
> AFTER a decision has been made to delete the name.
>
>   b. It was generally agreed that the Redemption Grace Period (RGP) as
> currently defined should apply, with the exception of one of the following
> conditions:
>
>   1. Evidence that the data had been corrected must be submitted.
>   2. The RGP only applies the first time a domain is deleted for this
reason
> within a 12 month time period.
>
>   The TF asked that I determine the RC's preference as to which condition
> they would prefer to see adopted.
>
>   Issue 3: Registry delete process
>   --------------------------------
>
>   a. It was generally felt that the RGP provided the solution for a
uniform
> deletes policy among registries.
>
>   b. The reallocation of deleted names was another matter. The Registry
> Constituency was asked to provide proposals. I would suggest that the RC
> also provide feedback on this subject.
>
>   First and foremost, does the RC believe that a uniform mechanism needs
to
> exist to ensure the fair reallocation of deleted names?
>
>   If so, what mechanisms would we propose? Or perhaps we may want to look
> first at the Registry Constituency responses.
>
>   Issue 4: Reversal of renewal transactions
>   -----------------------------------------
>
>   a. Basically, we have to delete a name to reverse a renewal. From my
> experience this most often comes up during the 45 day grace period. It
> doesn't seem to be a problem because the end result is a deleted name
either
> way. But this could also come up in regards to extending names prior to
> expiry (when deleting a name and registering it is not acceptable) and
> mistakes result in having to get registry support involved to undo it.
>
>   Do you really see this as a problem? What are suggested solutions, for
> example, an RRP UNDO command?
>
>
>