DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: [comments-deletes] Fairness is all we ask


Registrars are already required to submit any changes requested by
registrants, such as domain name cancelation requests, to the registry in a
timely manner. Speaking from my own experience at Go Daddy Software, we
have had several instances where registrants expressly requested
cancelation of their domain, and then later wanted to retract it for
whatever reason.

I apologize for misreading your recommendation D. The registry RGP fees do
not come into play when renewing a domain during the current 45 day grace
period. They only apply after a name has been deleted. The report does
include a recommendation that registrars post their policies regarding the
deleting of a domain name. However, there is currently no contractual
provision that influences how a registrar charges for renewals during the
grace period, or at any other time. I don't know if it is appropriate for
the TF to recommend where and how a registrar discloses its pricing.

All of the public comments we receive will be considered. This is only the
initial report. Once the public comment period has ended, and we have the
official responses of the various constituencies, we will be continuing our


 -------- Original Message --------
   Subject: RE: [comments-deletes] Fairness is all we ask
   From: Marcia Wells <marcia_mw2@yahoo.com>
   Date: Thu, February 27, 2003 8:30 pm
   To: comments-deletes@gnso.icann.org

   --- Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:
   > A. & B. I understand your recommendation here, but
   > as the document at the link above explains, ICANN
   > was responding to a growing trend of complaints
   > about unintentional domain-name deletions. A
   > relatively short delay in returning the name to the
   > general pool protects the original registrant from
   > oversights, registrar errors, etc.

   Actually, recommendation "A" was that registrants
   should be provided the means to expressly disavow an
   intent to renew, so that the name can be returned
   promptly.  Not one sentence in the Task Force report
   discusses this possibility.  Not one.  As there is
   nothing "unintentional" or "inadvertant" when a
   registrant expressly disavows his/her intent to renew,
   and as the RGP was reputedly created to solely protect
   against inadvertant deletions, the RGP should not come
   into play.  Even if the RGP covered this as well,
   there would be no reason to apply the "auto renew
   period" when the registrant clearly is not renewing.

   > C. & E. There is a cost to the registrar, imposed by
   > the registry, for redeeming a name during the
   > Redemption Grace Period. This cost is separate
   > from any normal registration or renewal fees. There
   > is also a certain amount of manual intervention
   > required by the registrar to complete the
   > redemption. The cost imposed by the registry had to
   > be approved by ICANN and had to represent a fair
   > price based on the cost to the registry to
   > implement the RGP.

   "had to represent a fair price".  Absolutely HAD TO.
   We understand.  And the additional $115 that
   registrars can throw on top of the $85 registry fee
   will most assuredly be a fair price as well.  Just
   because ICANN blesses something, it doesn't mean it's
   fair or that people are honest and upfront.  If
   everything ICANN did was great, if everything the
   registries and registrars did were honest, there would
   be no need for all the reform.  But we all know that's
   not the case, don't we Tim?

   > D. Antitrust concerns would likely prevent us from
   > being able to discuss this, or make recommendations
   > regarding it.

   If the Task Force discussion truly does represent a
   broad range of constituencies, where is the antitrust
   issue?  Perhaps you didn't understand.  Recommendation
   "D" merely has to do with a disclosure whether or not
   the 45 day period (which precedes the 30 day RGP)
   *must* be at the registrar's normal registration
   price, or whether the registrar may charge a higher
   price during this time as well.  This is completely
   unclear in the Task Force's report, whether
   intentionally or not.  Recommendation "D" is not a
   request for collusion, but merely a request that if
   the possibility of a higher price exists under the RAA
   during this time period, this detail should be made
   public in the report so that the public may better
   understand the effects of the Task Force's proposals.

   > F. A good point. I will bring this up with the other
   > members of the task force.

   Thank you.  Did you bring this up before you solicited
   the registrar constituency for a vote on the Task
   Force's report Feb. 27?  The public comment period is
   still open until March 3rd.  Should you not wait to
   hear all the public's comments before voting?  Again,
   what is the point of a public comment period if you
   encourage others to make up their minds before the
   comments are all in?


   Marcia Wells

   Do you Yahoo!?
   Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more

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