DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [del-com] Second draft of deletes implementation report

I have a concern about 3.2.1 below.
Does this mean we are not allowing the Registrant to exercise their rights to recover the domain during the RGP ?   I would think that the Complaintant should only be able to recover the domain from RGP near the END of the RGP (ie: after the rights of the Registrant have basically expired).  Alternately, if the Complaintant should exercise the recovery from RGP, and subsequent to that the Registrant wants to recover it, I believe the domain should NOT be placed on Hold automatically, should be placed in the Registrants name again, and should be in the same status and information that it was when it was deleted.
There are Registrars, such as ourselves, that are now deleting names a day after expiry.  I would hate to see a complaintant game the system by applying for a recovery on the first day, and basically taking away the rights of the Registrant to continue to use the domain during the complaint period.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-del-com@dnso.org [mailto:owner-del-com@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 7:00 AM
To: Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au
Cc: john@johnberryhill.com; fausett@lextext.com; jane.mutimear@twobirds.com; del-com@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [del-com] Second draft of deletes implementation report


I would still prefer this paragraph be deleted. However, it would also work if it were revised as follows, or something similar:


"A registrar must, at a minimum, make the same effort to inform a registrant of any material changes to the deletion policy during the period of the domain name licence as it would to inform a registrant of other material changes to the domain name licence."


The current Redemption Grace Period policy already states:


"Registrars may only RESTORE Registered Names in order to correct unintentional deletions caused by registrant, registrar, or registry mistake (or as required by operation of the UDRP or other applicable dispute resolution policy in order to implement a court, arbitral tribunal or Administrative Panel decision)..."


It may be a minor point but we should probably recognize the above to illustrate that this recommendation is in line with existing policy:


"In the event that a domain the subject of a UDRP dispute is deleted, a complainant in the UDRP dispute will have the option to restore the name, as provided for in current Redemption Grace Period policy, under the same commercial terms as the registrant.  If the complainant restores the name, the name will be placed in Registrar HOLD and Registrar LOCK status, The WHOIS contact information for the registrant will be removed, and the WHOIS entry will indicate that the name is subject to dispute.  If  the complaint is terminated or the UDRP dispute finds against the complainant, the name will be deleted within 45 days."



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [del-com] Second draft of deletes implementation report
From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
Date: Tue, May 13, 2003 10:08 pm
To: del-com@dnso.org
Cc: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>, "Bret
Fausett" <fausett@lextext.com>, jane.mutimear@twobirds.com

Hello All,

See attached a revised draft of the deletes implementation report
following the teleconference.

I have highlighted major changes in yellow.

Bruce Tonkin

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>