[council] GA summary 2002-08
This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's (and related)
discussions and news during the 8th (and the beginning of the 9th)
week of 2002. GA list archives are available online at
feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be appropriate.
The nomination period for the Names Council chair was ongoing. The
gTLD registry constituency has nominated Cary Karp. Philip Sheppard
of the Business Constituency, the current chair, is available for a
(i) Deleted domain handling; supplemental information on domain name
redemption. ICANN published a supplemental paper which detailed the
proposal in various points: Registrar processes remain mostly
unchanged, registries should be allowed to take a "cost-recovery
service charge", and registrants should be able to choose the
Genie Livingstone was not the only one to mention domain harding as
a problem which should be addressed first. However, Genie produced
a sample of 100 4-letter domains being in "on hold" status,
beginning with the letter "A", in order to understand what currently
happens. The result was that a particularly large number of the
domains investigated is held by Verisign Registrar, with
Register.com following on the second place.
Harold Whiting followed up to notice that "as of a few days ago, NSI
registrar was backlogged with over 1.3 million names that are
overdue for deletion." He suggests a Uniform Registrars' Deletion
Policy which should be mandatory for registrars. He suggests that,
upon expiration, a domain should immediately be put "on hold", and
become unusable for a (uniform, I suppose) period not less than 40
days. After that period, domains should be returned to the registry
and become available for re-registration. However, "registry shall
queue all names marked for deletion using the standard '5 day hold'
process used now."
William Walsh replied that this proposal would tie up some of
registrars' capital for a 45 day period, which would hurt smaller
registrars. While the same is the case with the current grace
period, that one is optional, while Harold's proposal would make it
Abel Wisman pointed out that a possible solution to this problem may
be to charge renewal fees to the registrar on the 45th day of
expiry, unless a domain is returned to the registry. Fees would
then be non-returnable.
(ii) Structure. After the board's retreat over the week-end, a
restructuring proposal done by ICANN's Lynn was posted. According
to this proposal, the current board of directors would be replaced
by a (smaller) board of trustees. Some trustees would be appointed
by governments (one trustee per geographical region), some would
represent so-called policy councils (replacing the current
supporting organizations, and being lead by "steering groups" which
would replace the current councils), and some would be co-opted by
the board. In particular, there would be no more "at large"
Constituencies would be replaced by "forums", and would not
automatically send representatives to the steering groups.
The board of trustees would be expected to make policy decisions by
itself, as opposed to the current board's mission (as far as theory
for details, and <http://www.icannchannel.de/lynn-proposal.pdf> for
a nice chart of the suggested structure done by Alexander Svensson.
Alexander also provided some preliminary comments, noting, in
particular, that "the Board seems to elect itself according to this
proposal." He also asks how non-commercial and individual users make
sure their voice is heard: Assuming that they have indeed
representatives in the steering groups (the proposal reserves seats
for non-commercials and individuals in the steering group of the
generic TLD names policy council), they would have to convince the
remainder of the steering group, which could then write a
recommendation for the board. The board, in turn, could ignore such
recommendations. Alexander concludes that, "to have an influence on
the ICANN process, having a seat on the board and/or the new
nominating committee seem to be good places."
(iii) Registrar data accuracy. Danny younger forwarded an excerpt
from a New York Times article on registrar data accuracy. In the
article, the counsel of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts,
the Internet and Intellectual Property claims that many registrars
did not reply to a message from the committee which requested
information "about whether and how the companies verify customer
Rick Wesson replied that "we" (we being Alice's Registry) "responded
and sent a lengthy letter discussing how difficult it is to identify
invalid addresses. There is no known method of verifying a snail
mail address in over 100 countries."
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/