DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

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

Hello Tim,

The task force had originally proposed a series of charges and refunds
in a renewal process that is completely automated (and hence expensive
to change). 

The Redemption Grace Period is generally a manual process so lends
itself to such special cases, and is more likely to recover the costs of
special processes.  ie we use our legal compliance division in such
cases as opposed to an automated website.

Of course there is nothing stopping you as a registrar using the steps
suggested in the original recommendation to recover payment durng the
renewal period itself.  From a Melbourne IT perspective we just renew
the name anyway (it is only $6) under the extentuating circumstances

The main issue from my perspective is:
(1) not being overly presciptive on a registrars business processes -
e.g requiring a registrar to provide refunds etc (in the original model
the business cost of a refund would probably exceed the the value of the
original renewal fee)

(2) provding a safety net for the complaintant to take the name out of
circulation if the registrant chooses not to renew the name

Perhaps we can include some additional wording to make explicit that a
registrar can choose to renew the name for the complainant after the
expiration of the registration agreement and before the name goes into
the redemption grace period (ie similar to the original wording but
without too much detail on refunds etc).


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com] 
> Sent: Friday, 16 May 2003 12:03 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin
> Cc: del-com@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [del-com] Second draft of deletes implementation report
> Still sounds messy to me. And I'm not convinced it will be as 
> isolated as you suggest. This does not seem to be any less 
> complicated, at least from the registrar's perspective, than 
> what the TF had originally proposed.
> Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 5:13 AM
> To: Tim Ruiz
> Cc: del-com@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [del-com] Second draft of deletes implementation report
> Hello Tim,
> > Another issue would be how long of a period after the Complainant
> recovers 
> > it do we allow the registrant to still recover it Up to day 75 after
> > the original expiry? The Registrars will need to track that. 
> The name will already be recovered from a registry point of 
> view (ie it
> will be renewed).    If the registrant met the requirements to recover
> the name during the same 30 day period, you could restore the 
> name to its previous status.  If outside of the 30 day 
> period, the registrant would not have the right to restore 
> the name to its previous status.
> > And if the Complainant loses and the domain is deleted 
> again, it will
> enter another RGP > cycle. Who, if anyone, will be able to 
> recover the name at that point?
> If within the 30 day period after the original deletion - the 
> registrant would be able to recover the name.  If outside the 
> original 30 day period, no-one would be able to recover the 
> name - it would eventualy be deleted from the registry.
> Given the low instances of the scenario - I think it is 
> reasonable to let registrars manage the business process, as 
> long as they do so logically.
> This whole area is really an extenuating circumstance, and I 
> don't think it merits being too presciptive on all the 
> various combinations - other than allowing for the 
> complainant to take the name out of circulation (ie prevent a 
> new third party from registering the name) while a UDRP 
> dispute is being resolved.  This in no way has precedence 
> over the registrant's existing rights with respect to renewal 
> or redemption grace period.
> Regards,
> Bruce

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