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

[Brendler, Beau]

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

****************************************************************************
********