[registrars] Ballot Request: Adopt as Constituency Position

[Ross Rader]

In the event that we don't reach a supermajority vote, this would be 
appropriate and required by the PDP.

Michael D. Palage wrote:
> Hello All:
> 
> I will not weigh in on the substance of the discussion as this is a
> matter that may potentially come before the Board. However, I would like
> to offer some friendly advice for what it is worth. Since there seems to
> be some clear lines of division within the constituency, I think it is
> important that any vote that is passed along to the GNSO Council include
> a brief summary of the majority and minority opinions involved with this
> subject.
> 
> In connection with the GNSO evaluation process, I explained how it was
> important for the board to understand the "depth" of an issue that comes
> before the Board. For example, regardless of the outcome of this ballot
> process it is important for the board to understand the pros and cons
> associated with this issue. I would remind the constituency back to the
> extensive work it done in connection with the transfer process.
> 
> The reason I think having this information documented in connection with
> any material sent to the GNSO Council representatives, is because I can
> almost guarantee that those registrars/stakeholders on the losing side
> of this debate will seek to lobby the board directly when we are called
> to vote on any potential resolution that the GNSO Council may pass. This
> happens on almost every issue. Therefore, instead of the Board having to
> rely upon last minute arguments from interested stakeholders, it would
> be much better to have a well documented history of any GNSO resolution
> with both majority and minority positions outlined along with the level
> of support accompanying each position.
> 
> Again I do not want to influence the direction of this discussion, but
> just ask that any final vote include a brief summary of the majority and
> minority positions involved with this issue.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael D. Palage
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Stahura
> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 10:12 PM
> To: Clint Page; Bruce Tonkin; registrars at dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Ballot Request: Adopt as Constituency Position
> 
> 
> A quick note on this topic now, as I also want to reply to all the other
> points Rob brought up.  I agree with Clint and Bruce.  I'd like to add:
> 1) Remember any registrar could still output the date, publicly,
> privately, whatever.  It just wouldn't be required.
> 2) Some registries cause another customer service problem and that is
> when a name is auto-renewed but the registrant hasn't paid.  The
> registrant looks at the registry date and it is one year in the future,
> then assumes that they don't need to pay, or have already paid etc.
> Better if the registry didn't show the date.  Again registrars could
> show it if they wished.
> 
> All for now,
> Paul
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Clint Page
> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 5:03 PM
> To: Bruce Tonkin; registrars at dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Ballot Request: Adopt as Constituency Position
> 
> I could not agree more with Bruce on this topic.
> 
> Clint
> Dotster, Inc.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 4:45 PM
> To: registrars at dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Ballot Request: Adopt as Constituency Position
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
>> Removal of the expiration date from the Thin Whois seems
>> contrary to what users look for and are most concerned about. 
>> Users check this field to know when to renew their domain by. 
> 
> This was a major improvement when we did this in Australia for .au.   It
> significantly reduced the level of renewal scams.
> 
> We are only talking about not making this public to everyone.
> 
> I don't know other licence models that publish the expiry date.  The
> expiry date of my drivers licence is not available to everyone.
> 
> It actually helps registrars (and their resellers) as it encourages
> customers to check with their supplier regarding expiry dates.   
> 
> The expiry date is usually available via:
> - the initial registration welcome email/certificate
> - via logging into the customer system provided by the ISP, reseller,
> registrar
> 
> Resellers, ISPs etc would still have access to the data provided by
> their registrars through the appropriate secure interface.
> 
> If a registrar wants to make the expiry date public - that should be up
> to them.
> 
> I as a registrar don't want to publish this date as it is the major
> source of data used in renewal scams.
> 
> At the time we made the change in Australia - there were complaints from
> ISPS etc that were using the public WHOIS for expiry information - but
> this was quickly resolved by getting them to use the secure interfaces
> provided by registrars especially for that purpose.
> 
> Likewise we had complaints when constraints were placed on the number of
> WHOIS queries that could be made.  It turns out that many queries were
> for the purpose of checking domain name availability.  This was quickly
> resolved by providing an appropriate public interface for checking
> availability that did not have constraints on query rates.
> 
> So in summary - I support removing the expiry date from public access.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce
> 
> 
> 
>