Robin, Hi.
What does "inadvertently lapsed re-registration"
mean... Didn't understand the terms of the
agreement with the registrar. Forgot. Missed the
emails and perhaps faxed reminders (one of my
registrars sends me a fax when I don't reply and
expiry date nears.)
Once out of the automated re-registration system
and a person's involved the registrar will be
incurring quite heavy costs. And if your friend's
name is a short string or real word/words then
seems the registrar might be being helpful with
their warnings about possible future costs
(perhaps,don't know the name, etc.)
That said, I do think there need to be checks
made that earlier consensus policy has been
implemented and registrants made aware of renewal
and delete policy.
And I support ALAC's efforts to begin a PDP
process on redemption grace and hope the NCUC
will also in the GNSO.
Adam (personal opinion, not yet an ALAC member.)
>NCUC:
>
>As I told Alan Greenberg on the GNSO call this
>AM, NCUC is interested to work with ALAC on this
>initiative (see email below) on the Redemption
>Grace Period.
>
>Just recently, this problem was brought to my
>attention by a friend who was being pressured by
>a registrar for high fees to get his domain name
>back in this period. After the domain name
>(which had been held for many years)
>inadvertently lapsed re-registration, the
>registrar wanted to charge him $85 to get his
>domain back. My friend balked at the high
>price and asked if he could wait for it to be
>available again to the public and register it at
>a competitive price ($14), but was told it could
>be up to 90 days before it will be made
>available to the public again by the registrar.
> He said the registrar was intentionally trying
>to stoke his fear that he would lose his domain
>if he did not pay the $85 to renew it in this
>redemption period. The registrar told him
>someone else could get the domain the minute it
>is available to the public and then he'd have to
>pay thousands of dollars to get it back.
>
>It seems like some registrars are able to extort
>exorbitant fees out of domain name registrants
>by virtue of their position of the domain name
>distribution chain.
>
>Are there others in NCUC interested in this
>issue of the redemption grace period and with
>working with ALAC and others to address it?
>
>Thanks,
>Robin
>
>
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>>From: Alan Greenberg
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>Date: September 25, 2008 8:20:40 AM PDT
>>To: Council GNSO <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>Cc: ALAC Working List
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject: [council] Fwd: Redemption Grace Period and associated rights
>>
>>
>>As per my announcement today at the end of
>>today's Council meeting, following is the
>>solicitation for support and help sent to the
>>ALAC and At-Large. It is not a definitive
>>description of the issue, but rather a
>>hopefully understandable summary for this who
>>do not spend their days thinking about domain
>>registration processes.
>>
>>The overall intent is to end up in an
>>environment where registrants have a
>>reasonable, predictable way to recover an
>>expired domain regardless of whether the reason
>>for expiration was lack of appropriate action
>>on the part of the registrant, registrar or an
>>act of some other third party. My understanding
>>is that this was the original intent prior to
>>the domain industry becoming such a large
>>business in its own right.
>>
>>The ALAC is certainly interested in hearing
>>from any constituencies who support the
>>initiative, and in particular, any individuals
>>who can help us craft the request for an Issues
>>Report.
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>
>>>Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:37:26 -0400
>>>To: At-Large Worldwide
>>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>,
>>>ALAC Working List
>>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>>From: Alan Greenberg
>>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>>>Subject: Redemption Grace Period and associated rights
>>>
>>>Four weeks ago, Danny Younger raised the issue
>>>of the Redemption Grace Period (RGP) with the
>>>North American RALO. A copy of his e-mail can
>>>be found at
>>><https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?redemption_grace_period_danny_younger>https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?redemption_grace_period_danny_younger.
>>>
>>>In essence, about six years ago, the RGP was
>>>proposed and implemented to allow a registrant
>>>to recover a domain name after it had expired
>>>and been deleted by the registrar. The reason
>>>for the deletion could be that a registrant
>>>did not receive the required notices of
>>>expiry, or they were not sent, or they simply
>>>forgot. Under the RGP, when a registry (such
>>>as VeriSign for .com) receives a request to
>>>delete a name, it is put in a hold status for
>>>30 days. During this period, the name does not
>>>resolve, and if nothing else had caught the
>>>registrant's eye before, this usually will.
>>>During this time, a registrant can recover the
>>>name for a fee. The fee is currently set $40
>>>but can and generally is marked up by the
>>>registrar.
>>>
>>>The RGP was implemented voluntarily as a
>>>Registry Service by all of the non-sponsored
>>>gTLDs. A registrar is not required to offer
>>>the RGP however, so the existence of this
>>>registry service did not guarantee that a
>>>registrant who neglected to renew could
>>>effectively use the RGP. It was hoped that as
>>>Registrar contracts were renegotiated, the
>>>requirement to make the RGP available would be
>>>added, but this did not happen. A consensus
>>>policy could have been created which would
>>>force them to offer the service, but this also
>>>did not happen.
>>>
>>>From the point of registries, domains
>>>automatically renew, but the registrar can
>>>reverse this retroactively during the
>>>"auto-renew grace period" (ARGP - typically 45
>>>days).
>>>
>>>Since that time the situation has changed in
>>>that registrars have generally added
>>>conditions in their registrant agreements that
>>>give the registrar the right to transfer or
>>>sell or auction an expired domain to some
>>>other party (the so called "direct transfer"
>>>right). Often, during the AGRP, they may
>>>monetize the domain temporarily to see if it
>>>attracts much traffic and therefore has
>>>commercial value. During this time, they *may*
>>>be willing to sell the domain back to the
>>>original registrant. The price may depend on
>>>how much traffic they saw in the interim. Once
>>>a value is determined, the domain may be kept
>>>by the registrar (perhaps via a related
>>>company), or sold or auctioned. Since the
>>>domain is never actually deleted at the
>>>registry (it still maintains its original
>>>creation date), it never gets a chance to
>>>enter the RGP.
>>>
>>>As complicated as this may sound, it is the
>>>short version. There was an excellent tutorial
>>>on these practices given at the Lisbon ICANN
>>>meeting in March 2007. A transcript can be
>>>found at
>>><http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/lisbon/transcript-tutorial-expiring-25mar07.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/lisbon/transcript-tutorial-expiring-25mar07.htm.
>>>
>>>The NARALO has agreed that this is a good
>>>project to take on, and has requested that the
>>>ALAC pursue it. The issue was on the ALAC
>>>meeting agenda of September 9, but
>>>unfortunately time ran out before we got to
>>>it. However, since that meeting there have
>>>been a number of conversations that indicate
>>>that this is an issue of importance and that
>>>there is sufficient interest among At-Large
>>>that ALAC should pursue it.
>>>
>>>In summary, we are looking for a way to ensure
>>>that registrants have a reasonably and fairly
>>>priced way to retain a domain name, even if it
>>>had inadvertently expired in the recent past.
>>>We are essentially looking at it from two main
>>>perspectives:
>>>
>>>- Impact on registrants who lose control of
>>>their domain name, potentially with
>>>significant financial or other impact; and
>>>- Impact on users who can no longer access web
>>>sites and services that they rely on.
>>>
>>>If we an find sufficient interest in At-Large
>>>and the RALOs to support this project, I would
>>>like to see the ALAC request an Issues Report
>>>from ICANN staff, which is the first step in
>>>initiating a Policy Development Process (PDP).
>>>Following the delivery of the Issues report,
>>>the GNSO Council would need to vote to decide
>>>to initiate a PDP. Informal conversations
>>>indicate there may be reasonable support for
>>>this on Council; assuming ICANN staff decide
>>>that this is an issues within the scope of the
>>>GNSO, initiation requires only a >33% vote.
>>>
>>>If we work quickly, I believe we can formally
>>>decide to proceed at the ALAC's October 14th
>>>meeting, and issue the request for the Issues
>>>Report in Cairo.
>>>
>>>I solicit general statements of support from
>>>ALSs and RALOs, and a few volunteers to help
>>>work on the request. Volunteers must either be
>>>knowledgeable in the issues being discussed,
>>>or be willing to learn very quickly.
>>>
>>>Alan
>>>
>>>PS For this who want to understand more of the
>>>history of the RGP, you can refer to:
>>><http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm
>>><http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/redemption-supplement-20feb02.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/redemption-supplement-20feb02.htm
>>><http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/accra/redemption-topic.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/accra/redemption-topic.htm
>>><http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm#RedemptionGracePeriod>http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm#RedemptionGracePeriod
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>IP JUSTICE
>Robin Gross, Executive Director
>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
>p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
>w:
><http://www.ipjustice.org>http://www.ipjustice.org
> e: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
|
