[council] Deletes Task Force draft recommendations
Hello all:
Prior to our call tomorrow, I wanted to share the draft recommendations
from the Deletes Task Force in their current form. These should
already have been circulated to the various constituencies by their
task force reps, but I wanted to make sure everyone has a chance to
review them in conjunction with tomorrow's discussion.
Please keep in mind that these are draft recommendations and may still
be subject to some refinement. In the initial task force report, which
I hope to have released soon, there will be considerably more
explanatory text surrounding the recommendations.
I look forward to speaking with all of you tomorrow.
Jordyn
---
Issue 1: As indicated in the issues paper, the status quo presents an
environment in which users may not always understand the deletion
process applied to their domain name. While recognizing the need for
registrars to pursue their own business models, the task force
recommends that certain baseline policies be adopted by all registrars.
Specifically:
1. Domain names must be deleted if a paid renewal has not been
processed by the end of the auto-renew grace period (generally
forty-five days after the domain's initial expiration). As a mechanism
for enforcing this requirement, registries may elect to delete names
for which an explicit renew command has not been received prior to the
expiration of the grace period.
2. Registrars should provide a summary of their deletion policy, as
well as an indication of any auto-renewal policy that they may have, at
the time of registration.
3. Registrars should provide their deletion and auto-renewal policies
in a conspicuous place on their websites.
A special case exists for names that expire during the course of a UDRP
dispute. In order to prevent the name from lapsing and being
re-allocated during the dispute, the task force proposes that the
challenger in the UDRP dispute be provided with the option of paying
for the renewal of the domain name in the event that the current
registrant elects not to renew the domain name. This policy does not
give the challenger in the dispute any special rights, nor does it The
policy is described in more detail as follows (it's a bit complicated
right now; we're working on paring it down while still covering the
edge cases):
1. In the event that a domain under UDRP dispute is likely to expire
during the course of the dispute, the dispute resolution provider will
notify the challenger of the impending expiration either at the time
the dispute is filed, or no later than 30 days prior to the expiration
of the domain.
2. In such an event, the challenger will have the option to pay for a
one year renewal at the sponsoring registrar's current prevailing rate
for renewals.
3. The original registrant will have the option of paying for the
domain name at any time up to the relevant registry's renewal grace
period PLUS thirty days (which matches the redemption grace period),
regardless of whether or not the challenger has paid for the domain's
renewal.
3a. In the event that both the registrant and the challenger pay for
the renewal, the name will be renewed on behalf of the original
registrant in accordance with the registrar's usual policy, and any fee
paid by the challenger will be refunded. The order in which the
payments are received shall not effect this provision.
4. In the event that only the challenger pays for the renewal of the
domain name, beginning no later than the duration of the relevant
registry's renewal grace period after the domain's expiration, the
registar will:
4a. Place the name on REGISTRAR HOLD and REGISTRAR LOCK, with the
result that the name will no longer resolve in the DNS.
4b. Modify the Whois entry for the domain name to indicate that the
name is the subject to a UDRP dispute, and to remove all specific
ownership information for the Whois record.
4c. If the challenge is terminated prior to a verdict being rendered,
but after the domain reaches this state, the domain will be deleted.
5. In the event that the verdict of the UDRP challenge is that the
domain is to be transferred to the challenger, the registrar shall
transfer the name in accordance with its regular process for such
situations.
6. Notwithstanding #3 above, if the verdict of the UDRP challenge is
that the domain is to be deleted, the registrar shall delete the name
in accordance with the usual UDRP process.
7. In the event that the verdict of the UDRP challenge is that the
existing
registration be sustained, AND the relevant registry's renewal grace
period
has expired without the original registrant paying for a renewal, the
domain name will be deleted.
7a. In the event that the verdict of the UDRP challenge is that the
existing
registration be sustained, and the renewal grace period has not
expired, the
domain name will be subject to the registrar's usual renewal and
deletion
processes.
8. Provisions #6, #7 and #7a apply regardless of any payment for
renewal by the challenger. With the exception of provision #3a above,
the challenger will not receive a refund for any renewal fees paid to
the registrar.
Issue 2: Many of the problems raised within the issues paper are
already under consideration by the Whois task force. In order to avoid
overlap between the two task forces, the Deletes Task force determined
that:
1. The scope of the Whois Task Force is to determine under what
circumstances a domain name should be deleted for reasons relating to
the domain's Whois data.
2. The scope of the Deletes Task Force is to determine what happens to
a domain name once it has been deleted for reasons relating to the
domains' Whois data.
In most respects, a name deleted for reasons relating to inaccuracy of
Whois data is treated identically to a name deleted for any other
reason. However, it is important to prevent registrants from using the
Redemption Grace Period to simply re-instate names once they have been
deleted, without providing accurate Whois information. In order to
prevent this, the task force recommends that registrars require that
registrants of such names provide new, verified Whois information.
This new data should be provided as part of the documentation to the
registry in conjunction with the request for the name's redemption.
Issue 3: The task force believes that the recently adopted Redemption
Grace Period not only provides registrants with crucial protection in
the event of inadvertent deletion or misunderstanding of deletion
policy, but also provides significant transparency into the deletion
process as lists of names to be purged from the registry's system are
published on a regular basis. The task force feels that the Redemption
Grace Period provides an adequate level of consistency and transparency
in terms of registry deletion policy, and does not recommend any other
specific steps be adopted at this time.
Issue 4: The task force has found that this issue is primarily
technical in nature. Although both the RRP and EPP protocols lack an
"undo" function that would allow for the direct reversal of a renewal
without deleting these domains, registries generally have
administrative procedures in place that allow for such transactions to
be reversed out-of-band. As a result, the task force sees no need to
take action on this issue.
In the event that registries or registrars desire this capability to be
added to the EPP protocol, the task force believes that these changes
are best pursued through technical fora such as the IETF.