DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[nc-deletes] Minutes - Conference Call, November 15

November 15, 2002   14:00 UTC


The following task force members were present on the call:

Registry constituency: Jordyn Buchanan:Jordyn.Buchanan@Registrypro.com
Business Constituency: Bret Fausett: fausett@lextext.com
NCDNHC: Adam Peake: ajp@glocom.ac.jp
IP constituency: Jane Mutimear: jane.mutimear@twobirds.com
ISPCP constituency: Maggie Mansourkia: Maggie.Mansourkia@wcom.com
GA: John Berryhill: john@johnberryhill.com
Registrar constituency: Tim Ruiz: tim@godaddy.com

Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse was unable to participate due to difficulties
connecting him to the conference bridge.


The interim chair, Jordyn Buchanan, provided an informal agenda which
included a discussion of the issues identified in the deletes issues paper,
and electing a permanent chair.

Brett Fausett requested a discussion of the schedule and process governing
the task force's work.  This was discussed prior to the other elements of
the agenda.


Buchanan outlined the timeline for the task force's work, which he indicated
was devised in accordance with the new GNSO PDP.  The original schedule is
as follows:

       1. task force members from each constituency due 17 Oct 2002 (10 days
          after 7 Oct 02)
       2. open public comments on the topic for 20 days beginning 14 Oct
       3. constituency position statements due 8 Nov 2002 (35 days after 3
          Oct 02)
       4. Preliminary Task Force Report due 15 Nov 2002 - Task Force Report
          due 25 Nov 2002
       5. Public comment period from 25 Nov 2002 until 16 Dec 2002 (20 days)
       6. Final Task Force Report due 26 Dec 2002 - Council to review report
          at meeting around 5 Jan 2003
       7. Board Report due around 10 Jan 2003

Buchanan indicated that the full membership had not been announced until the
Shanghai Names Council meeting, and that as a result the deadlines for item
#3 and #4 had already been missed.  He proposed a new deadline of November
22 for constituency position statements, and an adjustment of the subsequent
dates accordingly.  Fausett indicated that the short timeframes in the PDP
were supposed to be made possible due to support from ICANN staff, which was
not yet available.  Buchanan agreed, but indicated that the task force
should try to adhere to the timelines as closely as possible.

Members were polled to indicated whether or not constituency statements
would be feasible by November 22.  Several members indicated that they
thought their constituencies (IPC, ISPCP, Registrars) would be able to
provide statements by that date.  Fausett indicated that Business
Constituency bylaws require that statements be made available for comment
for at least 10 days prior to becoming official; Adam Peake indicated that
it might be difficult to obtain a NCDHC statement within a week, but that he
thought a statement from the constituency leaders was feasible.  The
deadline of November 22 for constituency statements was retained, with the
understanding that they might be amended after initial submission.


Discussion was broken into the four issues presented into the deletes issues

Issue 1:  Uniform delete practice after domain name expiry by registrars

It was generally agreed that it would be desirable for non-renewed domains
to be consistently deleted by registrars within the 45 day auto-renew grace
period.  Tim Ruiz indicated that this would probably be acceptable to
registrars, although more specific requirements with specific dates would be
more difficult to implement.  Buchanan also indicated that it would be
difficult to force registrars to carry names beyond their original
expiration, as this would require them to provide services that they had not
been paid for.

Jane Mutimear pointed to the discussion of names being deleted while the
subject of a UDRP dispute.  There was general consensus that this was not
desirable, but neither was forcing registrars to carry domain names that
were no longer being paid for.  Mutimear agreed to provide a proposed
solution for the problem to the task force by the next conference call.

The issue was raised of registrars attempting to resell names during the
renew grace period.  Buchanan indicated that he thought this was not within
the terms of reference for the task force, and that the problem was largely
confined to registrars selling names outside of the grace periods.  Ruiz
indicated that some registrars might try to sell names after a fraudulent
registration had occurred (in which case only a five day grace period would
apply).  Generally, it was thought that the re-sale issue was beyond the
scope of the deletes task force, but that the issue of deletions after a
fraudulent registration was discussed further.  The current limited add
grace period has the undesirable effect of forcing registrars to carry a
name without being compensated for their services.  Buchanan indicated that
this issue was not within the scope of the terms of reference, but that the
task force could request an expansion of its scope to the names council.
Buchanan requested that members discuss this possibility with their
constituencies before further task force action was taken.

The issue was raised of fraudulent deletion or deletion due to registrar
error.  Buchanan and Mutimear both contended that this was dealt with by the
redemption grace period.  Buchanan requested that if anyone wished to
discuss this issue further, that they make the case that the redemption
grace period did not provide sufficient protection.

John Berryhill indicated that some registrants did not realize that they
needed to renew their domain names.  It was the general consensus that
registrars providing good notice of their policies regarding deletion would
be helpful.  Registrars could indicate that domains would be deleted if not
renewed, as well as public notice of the timeframes in which they delete
names.  This would largely ameliorate the need for more specific
requirements of deletion policy within the 45 day auto-renew grace period.

Issue 2: Deletion following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy
It was generally thought that there was potential duplication of effort on
this issue with the Whois task force.  Buchanan indicated that a liaison
from the Whois task force should be participating in the deletes task force,
and that the current chairs had been selected as interim liaisons.

To avoid overlapping work effort with the Whois task force, it was generally
agreed that the deletes task force should focus on how deletes are handled
once the decision has been made to remove a domain, while the Whois task
force should focus on the mechanism that triggers the renewal.

Two general areas of concern were discussed:

1. Mutimear indicated that IPC was concerned that domains deleted because of
inaccurate Whois information should not simply be allowed to be undeleted
via the Redemption Grace Period, which could allow registrants to treat
Whois-related deletions as a "revolving door" with no real consequences.  It
was generally agreed that this was undesirable, and two theoretical
solutions were proposed:  first, that names could not be undeleted through
the redemption grace period unless the domain was updated with correct Whois
data; or second, that the redemption grace period would only apply to a
domain the first time it was deleted due to Whois accuracy concerns.  Ruiz
was tasked with requesting registrars to provide feedback about which
mechanism was preferred.

2. Ruiz indicated that registrars were concerned about proper notice being
provided to registrants prior to deletion, and that current 15 day notice
provisions might be insufficient, especially to international registrars.
No specific agreements or recommendations were made on this point.

Issue 3: Registry delete process

It was generally agreed that the redemption grace period provided much of
the transparency required by users and registrars.

Buchanan raised the concern that this transparency might still result in add
storms of the sort that seriously impacted the VeriSign CNO registry in
2001.  As a result, registries might like to implement a re-registration
system.  VeriSign's WLS was cited as an example.  Buchanan agreed to ask the
registry constituency for proposals on this topic.

Issue 4: Reversal of renewal transactions

Many participants seemed to think that this was not a serious problem with
little impact on registrants.  Because the impact would be likely to be felt
most by registrars, Tim Ruiz agreed to ask the registrars constituency if
they felt the issue needed to be addressed by the task force.

Jordyn A. Buchanan was nominated by Tim Ruiz and seconded by Jane Mutimear.
No other candidates were nominated.  The members of the task force agreed
that Buchanan should continue to act as chair.


The next meeting was scheduled for after the submission of constituency
statements, on Monday, November 25 at 14:00 UTC.  Although the conference
call service used for the first call seemed quite effective, various members
expressed concern that the non-commercial participants were the ones with
the greatest difficulty accessing the call due to timing and expense issues.
Buchanan agreed to discuss with Bruce Tonkin and the DNSO Secretariat
whether any DNSO facilities were available to facilitate participation.

1. Constituency statements due by November 22.
2. Buchanan: Request feedback from the registry constituency regarding
proposed mechanisms for possible re-registrations services invoked once a
domain name has been deleted.  Also discuss with Bruce Tonkin and the DNSO
Secretariat what DNSO resources may be available to improve access and
transparency for the task force.
3. Ruiz: Request feedback from registrar constituency on a) mechanisms for
ensuring that the redemption grace period is not abused by registrants who
provide incorrect Whois data; and b) whether registrars feel that a
mechanism to reverse renewal transactions other than through the deletion of
domains is a serious issue that warrants the attention of this task force.
4: Mutimear: Propose a mechanism for preventing the deletion of names during
a UDRP dispute that does not create an unfair burden upon registrars.

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