Hello All:
I will not weigh in on the substance of the discussion as this is a
matter that may potentially come before the Board. However, I would like
to offer some friendly advice for what it is worth. Since there seems to
be some clear lines of division within the constituency, I think it is
important that any vote that is passed along to the GNSO Council include
a brief summary of the majority and minority opinions involved with this
subject.
In connection with the GNSO evaluation process, I explained how it was
important for the board to understand the "depth" of an issue that comes
before the Board. For example, regardless of the outcome of this ballot
process it is important for the board to understand the pros and cons
associated with this issue. I would remind the constituency back to the
extensive work it done in connection with the transfer process.
The reason I think having this information documented in connection with
any material sent to the GNSO Council representatives, is because I can
almost guarantee that those registrars/stakeholders on the losing side
of this debate will seek to lobby the board directly when we are called
to vote on any potential resolution that the GNSO Council may pass. This
happens on almost every issue. Therefore, instead of the Board having to
rely upon last minute arguments from interested stakeholders, it would
be much better to have a well documented history of any GNSO resolution
with both majority and minority positions outlined along with the level
of support accompanying each position.
Again I do not want to influence the direction of this discussion, but
just ask that any final vote include a brief summary of the majority and
minority positions involved with this issue.
Best regards,
Michael D. Palage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Stahura
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 10:12 PM
To: Clint Page; Bruce Tonkin; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] Ballot Request: Adopt as Constituency Position
A quick note on this topic now, as I also want to reply to all the other
points Rob brought up. I agree with Clint and Bruce. I'd like to add:
1) Remember any registrar could still output the date, publicly,
privately, whatever. It just wouldn't be required.
2) Some registries cause another customer service problem and that is
when a name is auto-renewed but the registrant hasn't paid. The
registrant looks at the registry date and it is one year in the future,
then assumes that they don't need to pay, or have already paid etc.
Better if the registry didn't show the date. Again registrars could
show it if they wished.
All for now,
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Clint Page
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 5:03 PM
To: Bruce Tonkin; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] Ballot Request: Adopt as Constituency Position
I could not agree more with Bruce on this topic.
Clint
Dotster, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 4:45 PM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] Ballot Request: Adopt as Constituency Position
Hello All,
Removal of the expiration date from the Thin Whois seems
contrary to what users look for and are most concerned about.
Users check this field to know when to renew their domain by.
This was a major improvement when we did this in Australia for .au. It
significantly reduced the level of renewal scams.
We are only talking about not making this public to everyone.
I don't know other licence models that publish the expiry date. The
expiry date of my drivers licence is not available to everyone.
It actually helps registrars (and their resellers) as it encourages
customers to check with their supplier regarding expiry dates.
The expiry date is usually available via:
- the initial registration welcome email/certificate
- via logging into the customer system provided by the ISP, reseller,
registrar
Resellers, ISPs etc would still have access to the data provided by
their registrars through the appropriate secure interface.
If a registrar wants to make the expiry date public - that should be up
to them.
I as a registrar don't want to publish this date as it is the major
source of data used in renewal scams.
At the time we made the change in Australia - there were complaints from
ISPS etc that were using the public WHOIS for expiry information - but
this was quickly resolved by getting them to use the secure interfaces
provided by registrars especially for that purpose.
Likewise we had complaints when constraints were placed on the number of
WHOIS queries that could be made. It turns out that many queries were
for the purpose of checking domain name availability. This was quickly
resolved by providing an appropriate public interface for checking
availability that did not have constraints on query rates.
So in summary - I support removing the expiry date from public access.
Regards,
Bruce