[gtld-tech] Registrar Expiration Date I-D

Michele Neylon - Blacknight michele at blacknight.com
Fri Jan 22 10:41:23 UTC 2016


That could be addressed in a much more graceful fashion
A LOT of ccTLDs give a “grace” period and the whois data isn’t impacted, but for some reason gTLDs don’t and we (registrars) end up using the auto renew to provide it..

Adding more data to whois output is going to cause more confusion and I can’t see any point in doing that.



Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: <gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Pat Moroney <pmoroney at name.com<mailto:pmoroney at name.com>>
Date: Friday 22 January 2016 at 05:29
To: Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se<mailto:paf at frobbit.se>>, Andrew Sullivan <asullivan at dyn.com<mailto:asullivan at dyn.com>>
Cc: "gtld-tech at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech at icann.org>" <gtld-tech at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Registrar Expiration Date I-D

I personally don't yet have an opinion on whether we should implement this extension, but I did want to point out a very common case where the registry expiration date differs from the registrar expiration date. And that is during the autoRenew period. If the customer hasn't yet paid the registrar for a renewal, the registrar expiration date will be in the past, while the registry expiration date is a year in the future. I know for a fact that this can be confusing for registrants and happens in both thick and thin registries who autorenew domains at expiration. But, as I said before, I haven't looked extensively into this extension and the reasons for it yet, and there may be a easier or better way to remove the possible confusion.

-Pat Moroney

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016, 21:26 Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se<mailto:paf at frobbit.se>> wrote:
On 22 Jan 2016, at 3:22, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> I'm prepared to admit that registrars' data could be out of sync.  But
> surely this ought to be a bulk operation?

If things are out of sync, having both dates (that are out of sync) in the registry does not help.

The registry expiration date, which is already in the registry, is definitely enough.

What is in the business agreements between the registrar and registrant has nothing to do with the lifecycle of a domain name. And sure, some registrars do have, on request from their customers, coordinated payment cycles across all domains in the portfolio of the registrant. That the registrars today also expose those values in whois might be a bug, a feature or whatever. But we can not have as a goal that the registry should include information about those dates etc.

Can we please instead try to make the lifecycle of a domain name _simpler_ so people do understand it? Already today it is extremely complicated. Specifically in the end game, and yes, as pointed out, that is used by some registries and registrars in a way that is viewed by some as not 100% "ok".

-Pat Moroney
Sr. Software Engineer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20160122/bdf2150a/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the gtld-tech mailing list