[registrars] Ballot Request: Adopt as Constituency Position

[Ross Rader]

 From Tucows perspective, giving registrars the option to publish expiry 
data in their respective authoritative Whois goes far enough. I could 
probably be convinced to move to making this mandatory. But, it would be 
difficult to convince me that the registry data set should include any 
more than what is specified in the proposal. They are not authoritative 
sources and should not be arbitrarily publishing data into the whois 
that they did not receive from the authoritative source - under any 
circumstances. I understand that this arrangement makes it easier for 
certain purposes, but these are inconsistent with the general purpose of 
whois and the needs of my customers.

Given that, as the proponent of this motion and one of your elected 
reps, I have to do as I'm generally told :) My advice would be for us to 
  formally put the motion on the table so that we can formally accept 
amendments. This would give you the capability to have your amendment 
voted on regardless of whether or not I view it as being friendly.

As a TF rep, my objective is to see this document adopted with as much 
support as possible - I don't want to go into a ballot situation with 20 
unfriendly amendments to vote on. I'd rather see us modify the motion 
with friendly amendments and then proceed with one vote. Given the time 
constraints that face us, I don't see any other way of efficiently doing 
this.

Thanks again for the input.

Jay Westerdal wrote:
> Paul,
> I would propose Registries follow a documented procedure for showing
> expiration date since they are not authoritative instead of just hiding the
> field flat out:
> 
> On expiration:
> A) if Auto-renewed by Registry
>    1) Hide Expiration date with the words "Pending Registrar Action".
>    2) After 45 days, set expiration date to be a year from initial
> Expiration Date.
> B) if Explicitly renewed by Registrar
>    1) Show new date 
> 
> Ross if you would like to except this as a friendly amendment I would second
> your initial motion. I am not in favor of taking the expiration date away
> from ISP, Hosting Companies, Advisers, Friends, and Family of the domain
> owners at the Registry level but everything else in your motion looks good.
> 
> Jay Westerdal
> Name Intelligence, Inc.
> http://www.nameintelligence.com  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Stahura
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:50 AM
> To: Robert F. Connelly; Registrars Constituency
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Ballot Request: Adopt as Constituency Position
> 
> Because then we'd all have to transmit another command to the registry
> if the registrant paid during the 45-day period.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 7:31 PM
> To: Registrars Constituency
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Ballot Request: Adopt as Constituency Position
> 
> At 07:12 PM 10/4/05, Paul Stahura wrote:
>> 2) Some registries cause another customer service problem and that is
>> when a name is auto-renewed but the registrant hasn't paid.
> 
> Dear Paul:  Why not ask registries or ICANN to have the registry whois
> say 
> "auto-renewed" (or something like that) until the 45 days passes unless
> the 
> registrar executes an explicit renewal?  Regards, BobC 
> 
> 
>