RE: [council] Agenda Request
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). -ross 'Drop Catchers' Buy and Sell Web Names Others Let Slip By DAVID KESMODEL Wall Street Journal February 22, 2006; Page B1 Last month, Chicago real-estate agent Judy Orr discovered that a Web site she used to showcase area homes had gone off-line. It turned out she had failed to pay the $9 annual renewal fee for her Web address, oak-lawn-real-estate.com. But getting her site back online wasn't as easy as she had hoped: Another company had snapped up the domain name and wanted nearly $2,500 to return it to her. "I was sick to my stomach," Ms. Orr says. It took two years of work to build up the site so it would rank prominently in Google's search results, and that time "went down the drain," she says. The new owner of the address was Lease Domains Inc., which is run by a 21-year-old graduate student, Anthos Chrysanthou, who works out of his parents' house in a Chicago suburb. Mr. Chrysanthou says his two-year-old company owns more than 2,000 domain names, many obtained through a process called "drop catching" -- snagging names owners have let expire, either accidentally or because they no longer want them. "I liken the whole situation to tangible real estate," says Mr. Chrysanthou, who is pursuing his master's in business administration at St. Xavier University in Chicago. "If you're not paying your mortgage or your taxes on it, it's going to get taken away." Mr. Chrysanthou is one of hundreds of drop catchers who either resell names or use them for Web sites loaded with advertisements. (Ms. Orr's former site now features text ads for real estate.) Many drop catchers have learned the trade in the past year, seeking a piece of the booming market for domains spurred by a surge in online advertising. The practice also has gotten a lift from providers of domain services, such as SnapNames.com Inc., Pool.com Inc. and GoDaddy.com Inc., which have introduced tools aimed at helping people grab expiring domains. The services circulate lists each day showing which domains are about to go up for grabs. Auctions are held for particularly in-demand names, and prices can go sky-high: A1.com sold for $260,250 in December, after its previous owner let the registration lapse. Drop catching "has pretty much changed completely in a few years' time," says Michael Berkens, who runs MostWantedDomains.com, owner of about 45,000 domains, which range from 4nudepictures.com to 401kplans.com, out of his Fort Lauderdale, Fla., home. "There's more people," he says, and "prices have just escalated." DNJournal.com , a publication that tracks the domain industry, reported 2,291 sales of expired domains in auctions last year, with winning bids totaling a combined $11.5 million. That was up from 885 sales totaling $4.2 million a year earlier. Auctioneers don't report all deals to DNJournal, and the site doesn't track deals valued at less than $500. Roughly 20,000 expired domain names become available each day, according to industry executives. While many were consciously discarded by their owners, others, like Ms. Orr's, are the product of a domain-registration system that many users don't understand well. When a user registers a domain name, it can be reserved for as many as 10 years, typically for $80. But many choose a one-year registration because it is less expensive, often about $10, and because they may not want the site for a longer period. At the end of the year, the domain registrar generally sends renewal notices to the owner, but such messages can be missed if the owner has changed email addresses in that time. Under rules administered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the group that oversees the assignment of Web addresses, domain registrars such as GoDaddy and Network Solutions LLC have as many as 45 days after the expiration date to notify the official domain registry whether a name is being renewed or deleted. Typically, registrars have given users a grace period -- sometimes as long as 45 days -- to renew their name. If a name is deleted, ICANN guidelines then call for a 30-day "redemption grace period," during which the original owner can still claim the name. If there is no claim in the redemption period, the name is dropped from the registry after a five-day holding period, and anyone is entitled to seek it. For the .com and .net registries, managed by VeriSign Inc., names drop starting around 2 p.m. Eastern each day, all year long. What follows is a process that some in the industry call "pounding." As the names drop, Internet companies that help users acquire expired names send rapid computer commands to the registry, seeking to grab the most valuable names. It is "a mad rush," says Dan Rubin, who runs justdropped.com, which helps people identify and acquire expired domains. Registries for other domain suffixes drop names at different times of day. The drop process underwent a key shift starting in late 2004. That is when SnapNames started a new service for grabbing domains. The company has signed exclusive agreements with more than a half-dozen registrars, including Network Solutions and Moniker.com, under which the registrars transfer expired domains to SnapNames, and SnapNames auctions them off. That way, names that people are interested in don't go through the traditional drop process that is open to anyone. GoDaddy, the largest domain registrar, has introduced its own auction service for expired names that were registered with it, as have other registrars, as they seek a cut of the action for expired names. They begin auctions for names even before the names have officially expired but warn auction participants that the original owner could still redeem the name. For domain owners, the new system means names can be grabbed from them even more quickly than they could before. Instead of going through the full deletion cycle -- which went as long as 75 days -- names are being transferred to new owners in 30 to 45 days. 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. Ms. Orr's name, oak-lawn-real-estate.com, is one of those that was transferred before going through the full deletion process, says Jay Westerdal, who runs Name Intelligence Inc., a Bellevue, Wash., company that tracks the industry. Tim Ruiz, vice president of domain services for GoDaddy, which transferred the name, says, "We make every attempt to give ample opportunity for registrants to renew." He says the company gives registrants 30 days to claim a name after it has expired. If a corporation loses a domain name that it believes is copyrighted or trademarked, it can seek to recover the name by appealing to an arbitration panel under ICANN's dispute-resolution policy. It also could take the domain's new owner to court, though that can be more expensive. Ms. Orr says she lost her site's name, which wasn't copyrighted or trademarked, because she made the mistake of relying on her Web-hosting company to keep track of her registration. She says she didn't see renewal notices from GoDaddy because it had an old email address for her. Ms. Orr plans to use another site -- oak-lawn-il.com -- to replace the one she lost. -- Sophia Bekele Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598 Mob:925-818-0948 sophiabekele@gmail.com sbekele@cbsintl.com SKYPE: skypesoph www.cbsintl.com <http://www.cbsintl.com>
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 ===
Dear All A background paper or issues report is appropriate. Thanks Merilyn for the suggestion below. I have been active in this business and have learned that extension of the dates does not discipline the Clients. Ross, I think your proposal is reasonable and we all like to understand the issues, specially, if there is a far reaching implication. I would rather not think at this point, as inferenced by some that reaching consensus by enforcing proposals is not what GNSO PDP and OPEN FORUM is all about. Regards, Sophia On 07/03/06, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is interesting to consider how best to proceed. Ross, do you have an outline in mind that we can sort of bat back and forth among intersted councilors in a discussion over the next week or two? So that we could actually then formulate what a request for an issues report might look like? Also, there is perhaps another step taht can be taken and that is the development of a background paper -- similar to what Maria did on the second level names, although in this case, it might be that the background would largely be provided by operations staff? Have to think more about that, overall.
Marilyn
------------------------------ From: *Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@yahoo.com>* To: *Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org>* Subject: *RE: [council] Agenda Request* Date: *Tue, 7 Mar 2006 12:56:36 -0800 (PST)*
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 ===
Sophia B wrote:
Dear All
A background paper or issues report is appropriate. Thanks Merilyn for the suggestion below. I have been active in this business and have learned that extension of the dates does not discipline the Clients. Ross, I think your proposal is reasonable and we all like to understand the issues, specially, if there is a far reaching implication.
Yes - a backgrounder or issues report would be an excellent first step. -r
Ross, May I rais ea questions regarding this subject, for clarification? 1- Item 7: Contention for domain names at gtld registries - motion to initiate an issues report addressed the *issue of expiring domain names.* Draft resolution: Whereas the high demand amongst registrars on behalf of.....
From the way the wording of the resolution, it seem to be coming from a different perspective of the situation – it is saying that there is an overload of requests to the registries' systems – which creates problems. This is a different point of view from saying – there is a problem with the registrars auctioning the domains before the end of the grace period. It seems like the people that wrote this resolution are aiming to "ease" on the "poor" registries, and are preparing the ground for maybe an alternate service to offer by having their own auction service for expiring domains. Do you think this is the case?
2- One of the things that was raised in this discussion of the GNSO was the "meanwhile" solution some registrars (usually the big ones like NSI, dotster, godaddy) found which is – don't let the domains be deleted so some other registrars can re-register and auction – put them to auction the day they expure (during the first 45 days of the grace period). Are we pro or foe the "meanwhile" solution. Regards Sophia On 14/03/06, Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
Sophia B wrote:
Dear All
A background paper or issues report is appropriate. Thanks Merilyn for the suggestion below. I have been active in this business and have learned that extension of the dates does not discipline the Clients. Ross, I think your proposal is reasonable and we all like to understand the issues, specially, if there is a far reaching implication.
Yes - a backgrounder or issues report would be an excellent first step.
-r
Sophia B wrote:
Ross,
May I rais ea questions regarding this subject, for clarification?
1- Item 7: Contention for domain names at gtld registries - motion to initiate an issues report addressed the *issue of expiring domain names.* Draft resolution: Whereas the high demand amongst registrars on behalf of..... From the way the wording of the resolution, it seem to be coming from a different perspective of the situation – it is saying that there is an overload of requests to the registries' systems – which creates problems. This is a different point of view from saying – there is a problem with the registrars auctioning the domains before the end of the grace period. It seems like the people that wrote this resolution are aiming to "ease" on the "poor" registries, and are preparing the ground for maybe an alternate service to offer by having their own auction service for expiring domains. Do you think this is the case?
Can you forward me a pointer to the entire resolution? I vaguely remember the proceeding, but wouldn't mind answering your question with the benefit of a refresher behind exactly what we talked about and decided :)
2- One of the things that was raised in this discussion of the GNSO was the "meanwhile" solution some registrars (usually the big ones like NSI, dotster, godaddy) found which is – don't let the domains be deleted so some other registrars can re-register and auction – put them to auction the day they expure (during the first 45 days of the grace period). Are we pro or foe the "meanwhile" solution.
Speaking as a Councillor, I think it depends on how broadly we want to consider the issue. I tend to look at this as a completely separate issue that may or may not warrant separate policy development. Speaking in a personal capacity, I think its fine to provide for some differences in implementations during these time periods, as long as the practices are consistent with the existing contracts, consensus policy, etc. and that registrants aren't unduly disadvantaged (i.e. by not having access to standardized structures such as the Transfers policy, EPP "lock" standards, Redemption Grace Period, etc. -ross
Ross...sorry I just saw this. On 14/03/06, Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
Sophia B wrote:
Ross,
May I raise a questions regarding this subject, for clarification? 1- Item 7: Contention for domain names at gtld registries - motion to initiate an issues report addressed the *issue of expiring domain names.* Draft resolution: Whereas the high demand amongst registrars on behalf of.....
Sophia wrote:
From the way the wording of the resolution, it seem to be coming from a different perspective of the situation – it is saying that there is an overload of requests to the registries' systems – which creates problems. This is a different point of view from saying – there is a problem with the registrars auctioning the domains before the end of the grace period. It seems like the people that wrote this resolution are aiming to "ease" on the "poor" registries, and are preparing the ground for maybe an alternate service to offer by having their own auction service for expiring domains. Do you think this is the case?
Ross Wrote: Can you forward me a pointer to the entire resolution? I vaguely
remember the proceeding, but wouldn't mind answering your question with the benefit of a refresher behind exactly what we talked about and decided :)
Sophia wrote: I cannot find the email..it is a reference from I think what Phillip sent out recently in response to the issue you have raised regarding 'grace period'... a resolution passed in Cape Town etc... can someone help here... \\ Sophia Wrote:
2- One of the things that was raised in this discussion of the GNSO was the "meanwhile" solution some registrars (usually the big ones like NSI, dotster, godaddy) found which is – don't let the domains be deleted so some other registrars can re-register and auction – put them to auction the day they expure (during the first 45 days of the grace period). Are we pro or foe the "meanwhile" solution.
Ross wrote: Speaking as a Councillor, I think it depends on how broadly we want to
consider the issue. I tend to look at this as a completely separate issue that may or may not warrant separate policy development. Speaking in a personal capacity, I think its fine to provide for some differences in implementations during these time periods, as long as the practices are consistent with the existing contracts, consensus policy, etc. and that registrants aren't unduly disadvantaged (i.e. by not having access to standardized structures such as the Transfers policy, EPP "lock" standards, Redemption Grace Period, etc.
Sophia wrote: I agree with you, but the range of differences should be defined (i.e. if registrars can provide different grace periods, the range – with minimum and maximum - should be defined). -ross
Ross... I found it. here it is...Sophia http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-13jan05.htm Item 7: Contention for domain names at gtld registries - motion to initiate an issues report Draft resolution Whereas the high demand amongst registrars on behalf of their registrants to register specific domain names that become available for re-registration at the registry has lead to unforeseen strains on the ability of registries and registrars to manage their business efficiently, Whereas this affects the service level that registrars can provide to their customers and the meaning of ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars, Council resolves, to request the ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as specified in annex A to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Problems caused by contention for domain names made available by a gTLD registry ", so that Council can subsequently decide if a policy development process would be appropriate. Philip Sheppard spoke to the resolution which arose out of a discussion in Cape Town regarding the problem of of the volume of automated requests for expiring domain names from registrar to registry and requested further study through an issues report from the ICANN Staff Manager so that Council could then decide whether a policy development process should be initiated. Ken Stubbs commented that the issues report should clarify the reason for the demand. Barbara Roseman reported that the staff recognized that the issue would require effort from several ICNAN staff members with specific areas of expertise Kurt Pritz commented that in order to respond to the resolution, ICANN would like to go back and look at the complaints received, and solicit input from the registries and registrars on the topic, then provide a briefing to the Council based on an analysis of various data bases to ascertain whether there should be an issues report. Bruce Tonkin clarified that an Issues Report asked General Counsel to decide whether there were any policy issues but it did not go as far as saying what specific agreements and contractual issues were affected and proposed that there should be further clarification on contents and expectations of issues report in general. Philip Sheppard, seconded by Maureen Cubberley proposed the amended draft resolution: Whereas the high demand amongst registrars to register specific domain names that become available for re-registration at the registry has lead to unforeseen impact and strains on the registration infrastructure of gTLD registries and registrars. Whereas this affects the service level that registrars can provide to their customers and the meaning of ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars, Council resolves, to request the ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as specified in annex A to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Problems caused by contention for domain names made available by a gTLD registry ", so that Council can subsequently decide if a policy development process would be appropriate Bruce Tonkin called for a nominated vote. 19 votes in favour, 5 proxy votes in favour, 3 no votes. (Kiyoshi Tsuru and Alick Wilson with the proxy for Demi Getschko had dropped off the call and did not vote) The motion carried. Decision 4: Whereas the high demand amongst registrars to register specific domain names that become available for re-registration at the registry has lead to unforeseen impact and strains on the registration infrastructure of gTLD registries and registrars. Whereas this affects the service level that registrars can provide to their customers and the meaning of ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars, Council resolves, to request the ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as specified in annex A to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Problems caused by contention for domain names made available by a gTLD registry ", so that Council can subsequently decide if a policy development process would be appropriate On 15/03/06, Sophia B <sophiabekele@gmail.com> wrote:
Ross...sorry I just saw this.
On 14/03/06, Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
Sophia B wrote:
Ross,
May I raise a questions regarding this subject, for clarification? 1- Item 7: Contention for domain names at gtld registries - motion to initiate an issues report addressed the *issue of expiring domain names.* Draft resolution: Whereas the high demand amongst registrars
on behalf of.....
Sophia wrote:
From the way the wording of the resolution, it seem to be coming from a different perspective of the situation – it is saying that there is an
overload of requests to the registries' systems – which creates problems. This is a different point of view from saying – there is a problem with the registrars auctioning the domains before the end of the grace period. It seems like the people that wrote this resolution are aiming to "ease" on the "poor" registries, and are preparing the ground for maybe an alternate service to offer by having their own auction service for expiring domains. Do you think this is the case?
Ross Wrote:
Can you forward me a pointer to the entire resolution? I vaguely
remember the proceeding, but wouldn't mind answering your question with the benefit of a refresher behind exactly what we talked about and decided :)
Sophia wrote: I cannot find the email..it is a reference from I think what Phillip sent out recently in response to the issue you have raised regarding 'grace period'... a resolution passed in Cape Town etc... can someone help here...
\\
Sophia Wrote:
2- One of the things that was raised in this discussion of the GNSO was the "meanwhile" solution some registrars (usually the big ones like NSI, dotster, godaddy) found which is – don't let the domains be deleted so some other registrars can re-register and auction – put them to auction the day they expure (during the first 45 days of the grace period). Are we pro or foe the "meanwhile" solution.
Ross wrote:
Speaking as a Councillor, I think it depends on how broadly we want to
consider the issue. I tend to look at this as a completely separate issue that may or may not warrant separate policy development. Speaking in a personal capacity, I think its fine to provide for some differences in implementations during these time periods, as long as the practices are consistent with the existing contracts, consensus policy, etc. and that registrants aren't unduly disadvantaged (i.e. by not having access to standardized structures such as the Transfers policy, EPP "lock" standards, Redemption Grace Period, etc.
Sophia wrote: I agree with you, but the range of differences should be defined (i.e. if registrars can provide different grace periods, the range – with minimum and maximum - should be defined).
-ross
Marilyn Cade wrote:
It is interesting to consider how best to proceed. Ross, do you have an outline in mind that we can sort of bat back and forth among intersted councilors in a discussion over the next week or two? So that we could actually then formulate what a request for an issues report might look like? Also, there is perhaps another step taht can be taken and that is the development of a background paper -- similar to what Maria did on the second level names, although in this case, it might be that the background would largely be provided by operations staff? Have to think more about that, overall.
Thanks for the suggestion. Here is a possible way forward. We already have a practice that has support amongst registrars and registries i.e. the existing RGP (RGP 1.0?) is already support by a number of registries and registrars. The problem is, RGP 1.0 is not consensus policy, it is a registry service. This means that not all registrants have access to RGP 1.0 in the event that they lose their name because they failed to pay a renewal fee. I don't believe that anyone thinks that registrant's should lose their domain name if they fail to pay a renewal fee, which is why we designed RGP 1.0 in the first place. The problem is, because the implementation of RGP 1.0 was brought forth as a registry service and not consensus policy, no registrar or registry is required to implement it. Some have suggested that this is a fair point of competitive differentiation. My view is that this isn't the case, and that all registrants should have access to this otherwise fair program. Ensuring that registrants have access to the RGP would be a matter for consensus policy development. My recommendation would be to proceed with a very narrow terms of reference to ensure that we can close the question fairly quickly, but also to leave room for future policy development. i.e. The goal of this PDP will be to evaluate whether or not the existing RGP should be implemented as consensus policy. In the event that there is a recommendation to implement the existing RGP as consensus policy, an analysis of the effectiveness of the adopted consensus policy should be undertaken within 6 months of its implementation. I don't think opening the RGP up for amendment at this point would be entirely useful - changes to the policy might be required at some point in the future to ensure maximum effectiveness, but I think it would be prudent to address implementation and improvement as separate tasks. (i.e. we can get 90% of the way there over the short term, and then try to get traction on improvements over the longer term.) Is this what you were thinking? Happy to clarify further. Thanks again, -ross
Not sure if we can discuss this much on today's call, but we should put it on the Council's agenda to discuss in Wellington. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 1:27 PM Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Agenda Request Marilyn Cade wrote:
It is interesting to consider how best to proceed. Ross, do you have an outline in mind that we can sort of bat back and forth among intersted councilors in a discussion over the next week or two? So that we could actually then formulate what a request for an issues report might look like? Also, there is perhaps another step taht can be taken and that is the development of a background paper -- similar to what Maria did on the second level names, although in this case, it might be that the background would largely be provided by operations staff? Have to think more about that, overall.
Thanks for the suggestion. Here is a possible way forward. We already have a practice that has support amongst registrars and registries i.e. the existing RGP (RGP 1.0?) is already support by a number of registries and registrars. The problem is, RGP 1.0 is not consensus policy, it is a registry service. This means that not all registrants have access to RGP 1.0 in the event that they lose their name because they failed to pay a renewal fee. I don't believe that anyone thinks that registrant's should lose their domain name if they fail to pay a renewal fee, which is why we designed RGP 1.0 in the first place. The problem is, because the implementation of RGP 1.0 was brought forth as a registry service and not consensus policy, no registrar or registry is required to implement it. Some have suggested that this is a fair point of competitive differentiation. My view is that this isn't the case, and that all registrants should have access to this otherwise fair program. Ensuring that registrants have access to the RGP would be a matter for consensus policy development. My recommendation would be to proceed with a very narrow terms of reference to ensure that we can close the question fairly quickly, but also to leave room for future policy development. i.e. The goal of this PDP will be to evaluate whether or not the existing RGP should be implemented as consensus policy. In the event that there is a recommendation to implement the existing RGP as consensus policy, an analysis of the effectiveness of the adopted consensus policy should be undertaken within 6 months of its implementation. I don't think opening the RGP up for amendment at this point would be entirely useful - changes to the policy might be required at some point in the future to ensure maximum effectiveness, but I think it would be prudent to address implementation and improvement as separate tasks. (i.e. we can get 90% of the way there over the short term, and then try to get traction on improvements over the longer term.) Is this what you were thinking? Happy to clarify further. Thanks again, -ross
May I raise another issue with respect to either today's agenda or at least for the council to consider prior to Wellington---that of addressing the WIPO-II issues --which have been incorporated into the PDP-Dec05 --by means of a committee or whatever other type body is appropriate. The IPC constituency statement outlines one approach but I think it is time to take some concrete actions in getting this issue resolved. This would also allow ICANN to finally respond to WIPO advising them that the matter is being addressed. Your comments are welcomed. Lucy
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Ross Rader Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 12:27 PM Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Agenda Request
Marilyn Cade wrote:
It is interesting to consider how best to proceed. Ross, do you have an outline in mind that we can sort of bat back and forth among intersted councilors in a discussion over the next week or two? So that we could actually then formulate what a request for an issues report might look like? Also, there is perhaps another step taht can be taken and that is the development of a background paper -- similar to what Maria did on the second level names, although in this case, it might be that the background would largely be provided by operations staff? Have to think more about that, overall.
Thanks for the suggestion. Here is a possible way forward. We already have a practice that has support amongst registrars and registries i.e. the existing RGP (RGP 1.0?) is already support by a number of registries and registrars. The problem is, RGP 1.0 is not consensus policy, it is a registry service. This means that not all registrants have access to RGP 1.0 in the event that they lose their name because they failed to pay a renewal fee. I don't believe that anyone thinks that registrant's should lose their domain name if they fail to pay a renewal fee, which is why we designed RGP 1.0 in the first place. The problem is, because the implementation of RGP 1.0 was brought forth as a registry service and not consensus policy, no registrar or registry is required to implement it. Some have suggested that this is a fair point of competitive differentiation. My view is that this isn't the case, and that all registrants should have access to this otherwise fair program. Ensuring that registrants have access to the RGP would be a matter for consensus policy development.
My recommendation would be to proceed with a very narrow terms of reference to ensure that we can close the question fairly quickly, but also to leave room for future policy development.
i.e. The goal of this PDP will be to evaluate whether or not the existing RGP should be implemented as consensus policy. In the event that there is a recommendation to implement the existing RGP as consensus policy, an analysis of the effectiveness of the adopted consensus policy should be undertaken within 6 months of its implementation.
I don't think opening the RGP up for amendment at this point would be entirely useful - changes to the policy might be required at some point in the future to ensure maximum effectiveness, but I think it would be prudent to address implementation and improvement as separate tasks. (i.e. we can get 90% of the way there over the short term, and then try to get traction on improvements over the longer term.)
Is this what you were thinking? Happy to clarify further.
Thanks again,
-ross
participants (6)
-
Lucy.Nichols＠nokia.com -
Marilyn Cade -
Mawaki Chango -
Ross Rader -
Sophia B -
tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com