[ga] Re: [NA-Discuss] Restoring the Safety Net

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny and all,

  Of course, your right that an error in judgment on the part of ICANN
in respects to the RGP is evident.  It was when it was first proposed,
but ICANN staff at the time disagreed and approved the RGP process.

  What is even more clear now, is that the ALAC leadership are not
particularly knowledgeable enough on specific process considerations
regarding nearly anything remotely related to DNS, DN registration,
and certainly not privacy or security.  Ergo although you are rightly
calling the ALAC out to engage effectively, there is little doubt
that the ALAC is not likely to be up to such a task.  As such a
more directed consultation WG open to any and all, would be a
more likely means by which addressing the earlier judgment error,
one of many, that ICANN's staff has left languishing...  After all,
ICANN is supposed to be all about openess, transparency, bottom
up process and accountability, right?

Danny Younger wrote:

> For discussion in advance of the NARALO Monthly Meeting -- 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 â??restoringâ?? 
> 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.
>
>
>
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827