Re: [council] Agenda Request

["Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx>*
> To:  *Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*
> 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@xxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > On Behalf Of Sophia B
> > > Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 7:16 PM
> > > To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > 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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 ===
> >
>
>