Hi Adam, I meant the registration of the domain name expired without the person's having realized it. Some registrars are better than others at letting customers know when a registration will expire. It would be interesting to know what different registrars charge customers during the "redemption" period - that would be a useful piece of info when shopping around for a registrar. Robin On Sep 26, 2008, at 1:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > 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:alac@atlarge- >>> lists.icann.org>[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:at-large@atlarge- >>>> lists.icann.org>[log in to unmask]>, ALAC Working >>>> List <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>alac@atlarge- >>>> lists.icann.org> >>>> 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] 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 e: [log in to unmask]