Ross, Sophia, Marylin et al. I would tend to believe that the issue here is less the duration of the RGP itself that the policy "enforcement" and/or implementation proposals. So the question would be: shall we initiate a PDP for enforcement provision? I find that a bit worrying that some registrars, and by no means the least, "begin auctions for names even before the names have officially expired but warn auction participants that the original owner could still redeem the name." On the other hand, the following suggests that the issue requires a change in policy: "Paul Twomey, chief executive of ICANN, says some people in the domain industry recently have raised concerns that the guidelines governing expired names are "being utilized in ways that were not originally intended." But Mr. Twomey says no one has proposed a formal change in policy to address the issue." Overall, though I suspect that the current apparent consensus does not necessarily allow to prejudge, in my view, of a smooth and quick PDP (Ross, you never know what you'll run into when you give people the opportunity to talk:-)); though I also find reasonnable a time period of 30 (RGP) to 75 (+ time for the registrars to inform ICANN) days during which the registrant has one chance to claim her/his name back; I think it is necessary to take action in order to ensure that: i) ICANN be duly informed before any action is taken by the registrars on the market regarding the dropped names (even if they don't want their initial clients/registrants take advantage of the 45 day notice allowed by ICANN); and ii) the current 30-day RGP be fully observed and respected by all players. That is the least, isn't it? Mawaki --- tony.ar.holmes@bt.com wrote:
I think the ISPCP would also be likely to add their support for this item. Its important we try to nail down a process that overcomes some of the current shortfalls which impact many registrants.
Tony
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ken Stubbs Sent: 05 March 2006 01:53 To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: Re: [council] Agenda Request
Marilyn's observations here are quite relevant.. there has to be basic "enforceable" safeguards built into the process to deal with inadvertent expirations and accidental deletions..
many companies (large & small) , have invested significant funds & resources into their respective internet presence and to think that it could all "evaporate" over a mistake made by someone in the accounts payable department or a misdirected email (i.e. spam filtered) is disconcerting to say the least... !
regards
ken stubbs
Marilyn Cade wrote:
I am interested in this topic. I chaired the Transfers TF, and we dealt with a variety of topics in that TF...
But, the Redemption Grace Period emerged as a safeguard for registrants.
In those days, I worked for AT&T, and they had a portfolio of over 500 names, including .net; .com; .org; several dozen country codes where they had market facing presence, and when the "proof of concept" TLDs were introduced, they also defensively registered in info and .biz in particular.
Managing the portfolio was part of an assignment to a particular part of the corporation, but still, it was challenging and not simple to keep track of.
I registered a name or two that I wanted to use, for organizing ad hoc coalitions, and managed them myself. And, then, when I left AT&T, I registered two names, one to use, one to defensively protect my "name".
I am now an "average registrant" -- I need all the safeguards I can get. My registrar is extremely responsible - wait, BOTH my registrars are responsible. BOTH of them remind me, and remind me, and REMIND me... but you know, I travel, I have a 90 year old father and I get distracted... and I am the CEO of a small business with a lot of other distractions... and focusing on my domain name doesn't always rise to the top of my agenda.... Yet, I depend on it....
So, I need all the safeguards I can get. ... :-) within reason.
I'll try not to extrapolate from my own experience and ineptness, but still, I think about the 'average' registrant. ... and thus, consensus policy for RGP seems fully appropriate.
Marilyn
_____
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Sophia B Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 7:16 PM To: ross@tucows.com Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Agenda Request
I believe that the current policy is fine. It gives enough time in any way it is implemented for registrants to renew. Many people are irresponsible and that is why they loose their domains. I don't think giving them more time would change it.
Choosing a better registrar that does a good job of protecting them is more important.
Sophia
On 03/03/06, Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
Bruce, fellow Councillors,
At our next meeting, I would like to propose the initiation of a new policy development process concerning the Redemption Grace Period and request that this topic be added to our agenda.
It has recently come to my attention recently that the current implementation (detailed at http://www.icann.org/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm) is an optional registry service which may not be meeting the needs of registrants as originally envisaged when it was implemented. Recent press reports (see below) and registrant complaints indicate that names are being lost despite the implementation of this registry service.
I have spent a lot of time considering whether or not Council can afford to take on additional work given our current workload and have come to the view that because of the widespread support for the Redemption Grace Period amongst the constituencies (as documented on the ICANN website) and the pre-existence of strong policy and implementation proposals that
already have consensus support of the stakeholders, we should be able to confirm the Redemption Grace Period proposals as consensus policy fairly quickly and without much additional effort or contentious debate.
Because of the pre-existing consensus on this issue, I will propose to move this forward without creating a task force per Annex A, Section 8 of the ICANN Bylaws once we have agreed to initiate a PDP and been provided with an issues report by the staff. (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA-8). i.e. the fast-track.
In the very least, creation of an issues report will gather up substantive data on this subject and allow us to make an informed decision regarding whether or not circumstances like those detailed below are widespread enough to justify launching a full-fledged PDP.
Your consideration of this matter would be extremely appreciated. If you
have any questions, please don't hesitate to drop me a note (or give me a ring).
=== message truncated ===