Beau, Dany and all, It's a good proposal. May I add a few comments that I hear from people who have to deal with a domain name: 1- Registrants are often emailed that their domain name expires in a (too) short period of time: that situation occurs when the information is sent to a person who registered the DN but doen't work for the company anymore, has been replaced by somebody who is not familiar with ICANN, TLD's, domain names, registrars, and doen't know how (and why) to update information used by a registrar; 2- Many of them don't really know what to do exactly in any given situation: renew, pay some fees (which fees ?): the level of confort is low, especially in small businesses and organisations where there is no entitled specialist dedicated to that task. 3- Many of them know nothing about a redemption grace period (who would blame them ?). I suggest that, in order to protect the consumer, information provided should be more «understandable» to a «not techi» and, why not, with a tutorial available in the native language of the user... Louis Houle ISOC Québec Brendler, Beau a écrit :
Greetings. Yesterday the NA RALO agreed that this proposal from Danny Younger was significant and important.
We submit it today for ALAC consideration. I will mention it on this morning's call and refer you to this note for detail.
Beau Brendler
A proposal to the ALAC:
Six years ago the ICANN Board resolved [02.83] to revise agreements
with the unsponsored TLD registry operators so as to implement the Redemption Grace Period. The RGP is a time frame in which domain names that expire go into a period of stasis after their deletion so that inadvertent expirations can be corrected; the names are disabled during this stasis period so that the registrant's attention is better drawn to the situation.
The Redemption Grace Period was widely heralded as an invaluable protective service with ICANN Director Abril i Abril noting for the record that "that the goal of the Redemption Grace Period is not purely technical or to preserve registrars' businesses, but is centered on preserving the legitimate interests of the registrants by installing a safety net."
Unlike other ICANN initiatives, the RGP Safety Net was not established by way of the ICANN Consensus Policy process. The ICANN Staff sentiment at the time was that "Resolving all of the perceived issues surrounding domain-name deletions would likely require lengthy policy-development processes that meet the strict requirements for development of "Consensus Policies" set out in ICANN's various agreements with registrars and registry operators. The Redemption Grace Period proposal, on the other hand, allows a way promptly to solve a specific, pressing problem with the cooperation of the affected registry operators."
Six years later, we have ample reason to believe that this error in judgment, the failure to invoke the Consensus Policy process, has led to a serious degradation in the degree of protection currently afforded to the registrant community. Framed as a "registry offering", it has been at the sole discretion of the registrar whether to offer or not to offer the Redemption Grace Period service -- and many do not. We have noted that some that offer the service will still deny the registrant the protections of the RGP in the event that they receive an aftermarket back-order for the expiring domain.
What was once widely viewed as an ICANN consumer protection triumph is today little more than a degraded product offering engendering a morass of consumer confusion and aggravation, the situation having been exacerbated by the collusion of aftermarket profiteers and registrars to the point that (as indicated by Rob Hall at the Lisbon Tutorial on Changes in the Expiry Process) domains of value no longer enter the ICANN RGP.
From the very beginning, it was the sentiment of many in ICANN's GNSO community that a consensus policy approach was the best way way forward. The Business Constituency's Marilyn Cade, for one, noted that "consensus policy for RGP seems fully appropriate". We in the NARALO share this point of view and ask the ALAC, in accordance with the ICANN bylaws, to raise the issue for RGP consensus policy development by action of the Committee to commence the Policy Development Process, and transmission of that request to the GNSO Council.
We further ask that upon requesting the formulation of a Staff Issues Report, that Staff be directed to supply the following within such report:
a. a listing of all registrars noting whether they offer or do not offer the RGP service;
b. a listing, by registrar, of prices currently charged for the RGP service;
c. a listing noting which registries offer or do not offer the RGP;
d. an assessment of the impact of aftermarket domain name practices on the RGP
e. per the Expired Domain Name Deletion Policy 3.7.5.6 "If Registrar operates a website for domain registration or renewal, it should state, both at the time of registration and in a clear place on its website, any fee charged for the recovery of a domain name during the Redemption Grace Period", a listing of all such "statement" URLs of each registrar that offer the RGP;
f. the status of the Bucharest recommendation of the Technical Steering Group that "ICANN's President should re-convene this (or a similar) Technical Steering Group to review the implementation of the Redemption Grace Period, to suggest possible improvements to the Redemption Grace Period, and to develop a specification for Stage 2 of the implementation of the Redemption Grace Period, which will enable registrants to choose the “restoring” registrar."
g. an assessment as to whether it is now possible to engage in renegotiation of the charges for each restore command -- first set at $85 by ICANN and thereafter at $40, but with development costs long since amortized by the respective registries.
We in the North American user community see great value in a universal safety net and in the enhanced registrar competition that will allow RGP prices to fall as consumers choose between the services offered by competing "restoring" registrars. A consensus policy directive should ultimately ensure that all gTLD domain name consumers have the blanket protection that they deserve. We ask the ALAC to set us upon a path that will bring this vision to fruition.
________________________________________
**************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED
**************************************************************************** ********
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------