Re: [council] Agenda Request

["Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ross...sorry I just saw this.

On 14/03/06, Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
>