Registrar - Bruce Tonkin
Registrar -Ross Rader
Registrar - Brian Cute
Registry - Jeff Neuman
ICANN Chief Registrar Liaison - Dan Halloran
Deletes Task Force Chair - Jordyn Buchanan
Deletes Task Force User Rep - John Berryhill
Bruce Tonkin referred to the The Deletes
Implementation report v2 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/DeletesImplementationReportv2.0.html
3.1.1 regarding when domain names should be deleted with extenuating circumstances said there were two extremes,
- the extenuating circumstances should all be listed
- the case could be put up to ICANN and documented.
In the current draft, (noted above) an in-between solution was proposed defining extenuating circumstances. Renewal under extenuating circumstances must be recorded for ICANN to inspect.
It was further suggested that ICANN keep a track of the number of complaints and that if a registrar exceeds a certain number, there should be an inquiry.
- domain name subject to litigation in
a court of competent jurisdiction (court order too narrow)
- payment dispute or a discrepancy in the amount paid
- billing disputes (by character different)
Brian undertook to supply
to the deletes implementation committee
requested the addition of “valid” to court action.
inquired about keeping records
and suggested that they should be consistent with what is in the contract
and left to ICANN Staff rather than being the subject of a policy.
John Berryhill suggested limiting the discretion of the Registrar with regard to litigation (citing the example where some countries have a large backlog of litigation cases that could go on for years potentially used as a mechanism for a registrant to retain a name for no charge) as a protection measure and proposed that ICANN should decide on any extenuating circumstances in addition to a defined list (to ensure that this rule wasn’t abused).
Dan Halloran said that ICANN would probably have an exhaustive list of reasonable extenuating circumstances, so the probability of having to rule would not be likely, and would therefore be a manageable task.
Bruce Tonkin commented on 3.1.2., a text clarified by Bret Fausett:
In the absence of extenuating circumstances, a domain name must be deleted within 45 days of either the registrar or the registrant terminating a registration agreement.
Discussion showed satisfaction with the text
Comments on 3.2.1. the issue being what to do in the case of a UDRP dispute and the registrant does not want to renew the name in a UDRP dispute.
Bruce Tonkin reminded that there were costs attached to a manual process while
normal renewals was typically
an automatic process . Redemption
Grace Period processes used by registrars are more amenable to special manual
circumstances such as arise with a UDRP dispute. Such circumstance would generally be managed
by a registrars legal/compliance staff rather than
renewals staff. Discussion
pointed to the desirability of commercial term wording that a normal restoring
fee should be charged. Caution should be taken against abuse where registrars
could get paid twice. It was noted
that in either case, manual work was required by the registrars and it would
be reasonable to recover costs.
It was agreed on that the Redemption Grace Period was one of the methods of continuing the domain name.
Bruce Tonkin offered to produce another draft document following the discussion and the e-mail input.
If no further comments were received, the report would be finalized and passed on to the task force for assimilation into the Final Task Force report be sent to the GNSO Council.
If members of the Deletes Implementation committee thought that it was necessary another teleconference could be arranged.
Bruce Tonkin thanked all the participants for their attendance and comments that had been sent to the list.
Teleconference ended at 0:55 UTC, 8:55 Melbourne time
To be decided, if necessary
Dial in details will be sent individually to all the members.
© GNSO Names Council