[ALAC] Expired Registration Renewal Policy
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Nov 27 05:55:39 UTC 2012
Also posted as a comment to https://community.icann.org/x/J4Q3Ag.
As you know the Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP was
approved by the Board last year and the resultant Policy (now called
the Expired Registration Recovery Policy - ERRP) was posted for comment.
The PDP recommended that registrars who operate web site for
registration must post their renewal fees and state what method they
will use to contact registrants. The recommendation was silent
regarding resellers because it was the belief that registrars, in
honoring all of the terms of their contract, would require resellers
to post this information as well.
Although it was not clear why at the time, ICANN staff working on the
resultant changes to the RAA added very welcome wording explicitly
requiring that registrars require resellers to post this information
as well. The proposed policy can be found at
and the sections in question are paragraphs 4.1.2 and 4.2.3.
There were no negative comments about this in the public comments
which were due to close on Nov. 11th. Staff extended the comment
period for one more week, and had explicitly called attention to the
changes on the Implementation Review Group mailing list and
explicitly asking for comments to be posted on this.
Michele Neylon, the registrar who was on the Implementation Review
Group submitted a statement to the ERRP Comment saying that the
proposed language about resellers was debated at length by the PDP WG
and the final decision was to not include such language in the
recommendation. That is factually correct and indeed the report made
reference to the fact that there was an explicit decision to not
include it. His statement can be found at
The ICANN Registrar Relations staff person who I had been working
with was unavailable, so I asked compliance whether that was how they
saw this as well. The reply was direct and clear that this was not
how they interpreted the RAA terms and that the web posting
provisions would not apply to resellers unless the explicit. The
exchange is appending to this message.
I propose the following:
1. Under my own name but as former Chair of the PEDNR WG and a
member of the Implementation Review Team, I will post the statement
from Compliance that without the explicit reseller language, that the
new Policy will not benefit all Registrants, but only those who deal
directly with Registrars, and based on my understanding, that was not
the intent of the WG.
2. ALAC should post a statement supporting the need to keep the
explicit reseller language. This statement may need to be altered if
registrars in the interim post a message agreeing to keep the language.
The PEDNR PDP recommended that information about renewal fees and how
a registrar will contact a registrant should be readily made
available on the registrar web site (Rec. 5 & 6). It was the clear
intent of the recommendations that this apply to ALL registrants.
Paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 of the ERRP
require, among other things, that if a registrar operates a web site,
certain information must be clearly displayed there. Paragraphs 4.1.2
and 4.2.3 require that a reseller, if one is used, must similarly
display this information.
It is the understanding of the ALAC that the belief within the PEDNR
WG was that all provisions of the RAA that applied to registrars must
be enforced by registrars on resellers (for those who use them).
Since that has now proven to be false (reference to Greenberg post)
it is imperative that sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.3 of the proposed ERRP
not be omitted.
Without these two paragraphs, there is no obligation for a registrar
to ensure that a reseller displays this information and a significant
percentage of registrants, those who deal with resellers, may be
deprived of this information. The access to this information that
the PDP was attempting to ensure is no longer guaranteed, and the
registrar, by subcontracting services to a reseller, has effectively
been relieved from fulfilling these RAA obligations. This calls into
question the value of the immense time and energy that the community
puts into developing PDP Consensus Policy Recommendations and indeed
the effectiveness of the entire RAA.
Dialogue with Contractual Compliance
>A comment has now been made
>speaking against the language in the draft ERRP Policy paragraphs
>4.1.2 and 4.2.3
>As a result, the ALAC now needs to decide whether to reply to this,
>and if so, what we need to say.
>In order to understand the issue, I would like to know whether ICANN
>Contractual Compliance believes that the inclusion of these sections
>alters their ability to enforce the intent of the ERRP.
>Specifically, it has been stated repeatedly that all obligations of
>a Registrar are unchanged if they decide to sub-contract marketing
>to a reseller. In this case, I take this to mean that the obligation
>to have certain information on the Registrar's web site also
>includes the reseller's website if that is the Registrant point-of-contact.
>That would imply that what is explicit in 4.1.2 and 4.2.3 is
>applicable whether these statement are there or not, and their
>presence simply serves to remind Registrars of their obligations.
>Can you please confirm if that is a correct interpretation, or if
>not, how you view it.
ICANN Contractual Compliance:
>ICANN does not have the same interpretation.
>The reseller obligations as stated in section 3.12.2 of the 2009 RAA
>focus on the registration agreement where, if a registrar has an
>agreement with its resellers, the agreement must require the
>reseller to include all registration agreement provisions and
>notices required by the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement and
>any ICANN Consensus Policies (such as the information identified in
>4.1.1 and 4.2.2 of the proposed ERRP). The reseller obligations
>within the 2009 RAA do not include obligations on registrars to
>require the posting of information such as that within the proposed
>ERRP Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.3 on reseller websites.
>Under the contracts we have in place today, the reseller website
>posting obligations in the proposed ERRP section 4.1.2 and 4.2.3
>would only be enforced if the language is included within the ERRP.
More information about the ALAC