[LAC-Discuss] [Fwd: [NA-Discuss] Redemption Grace Period: For ALAC Consideration]

[Jacqueline A. Morris]

FYI
I think this is really important - can someone translate?
Jacqueline
Brendler, Beau wrote:
> Greetings. Yesterday the NA RALO agreed that this proposal from Danny Younger was significant and important.
>
> We submit it today for ALAC consideration. I will mention it on this morning's call and refer you to this note for detail.
>
> Beau Brendler
>
> A proposal to the ALAC:
>
> Six years ago the ICANN Board resolved [02.83] to revise agreements
>   
>> with the unsponsored TLD registry operators so as to implement the
>> Redemption Grace Period. The RGP is a time frame in which domain names
>> that expire go into a period of stasis after their deletion so that
>> inadvertent expirations can be corrected; the names are disabled
>> during this stasis period so that the registrant's attention is better
>> drawn to the situation.
>>
>> The Redemption Grace Period was widely heralded as an invaluable
>> protective service with ICANN Director Abril i Abril noting for the
>> record that "that the goal of the Redemption Grace Period is not
>> purely technical or to preserve registrars' businesses, but is
>> centered on preserving the legitimate interests of the registrants by
>> installing a safety net."
>>
>> Unlike other ICANN initiatives, the RGP Safety Net was not established
>> by way of the ICANN Consensus Policy process. The ICANN Staff
>> sentiment at the time was that "Resolving all of the perceived issues
>> surrounding domain-name deletions would likely require lengthy
>> policy-development processes that meet the strict requirements for
>> development of "Consensus Policies" set out in ICANN's various
>> agreements with registrars and registry operators. The Redemption
>> Grace Period proposal, on the other hand, allows a way promptly to
>> solve a specific, pressing problem with the cooperation of the
>> affected registry operators."
>>
>> Six years later, we have ample reason to believe that this error in
>> judgment, the failure to invoke the Consensus Policy process, has led
>> to a serious degradation in the degree of protection currently
>> afforded to the registrant community. Framed as a "registry offering",
>> it has been at the sole discretion of the registrar whether to offer
>> or not to offer the Redemption Grace Period service -- and many do
>> not. We have noted that some that offer the service will still deny
>> the registrant the protections of the RGP in the event that they
>> receive an aftermarket back-order for the expiring domain.
>>
>> What was once widely viewed as an ICANN consumer protection triumph is
>> today little more than a degraded product offering engendering a
>> morass of consumer confusion and aggravation, the situation having
>> been exacerbated by the collusion of aftermarket profiteers and
>> registrars to the point that (as indicated by Rob Hall at the Lisbon
>> Tutorial on Changes in the Expiry Process) domains of value no longer
>> enter the ICANN RGP.
>>
>> From the very beginning, it was the sentiment of many in ICANN's GNSO
>> community that a consensus policy approach was the best way way
>> forward. The Business Constituency's Marilyn Cade, for one, noted that
>> "consensus policy for RGP seems fully appropriate". We in the NARALO
>> share this point of view and ask the ALAC, in accordance with the
>> ICANN bylaws, to raise the issue for RGP consensus policy development
>> by action of the Committee to commence the Policy Development Process,
>> and transmission of that request to the GNSO Council.
>>
>> We further ask that upon requesting the formulation of a Staff Issues
>> Report, that Staff be directed to supply the following within such report:
>>
>> a. a listing of all registrars noting whether they offer or do not
>> offer the RGP service;
>>
>> b. a listing, by registrar, of prices currently charged for the RGP
>> service;
>>
>> c. a listing noting which registries offer or do not offer the RGP;
>>
>> d. an assessment of the impact of aftermarket domain name practices on
>> the RGP
>>
>> e. per the Expired Domain Name Deletion Policy 3.7.5.6 "If Registrar
>> operates a website for domain registration or renewal, it should
>> state, both at the time of registration and in a clear place on its
>> website, any fee charged for the recovery of a domain name during the
>> Redemption Grace Period", a listing of all such "statement" URLs of
>> each registrar that offer the RGP;
>>
>> f. the status of the Bucharest recommendation of the Technical
>> Steering Group that "ICANN's President should re-convene this (or a
>> similar) Technical Steering Group to review the implementation of the
>> Redemption Grace Period, to suggest possible improvements to the
>> Redemption Grace Period, and to develop a specification for Stage 2 of
>> the implementation of the Redemption Grace Period, which will enable
>> registrants to choose the “restoring” registrar."
>>
>> g. an assessment as to whether it is now possible to engage in
>> renegotiation of the charges for each restore command -- first set at
>> $85 by ICANN and thereafter at $40, but with development costs long
>> since amortized by the respective registries.
>>
>> We in the North American user community see great value in a universal
>> safety net and in the enhanced registrar competition that will allow
>> RGP prices to fall as consumers choose between the services offered by
>> competing "restoring" registrars. A consensus policy directive should
>> ultimately ensure that all gTLD domain name consumers have the blanket
>> protection that they deserve. We ask the ALAC to set us upon a path
>> that will bring this vision to fruition.
>>     
> ________________________________________
>
> ****************************************************************************
> ********
> SCANNED
>
> ****************************************************************************
> ********
>
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------
>