Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP WG ICANN – San Francisco March 2011.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Internationalizing WHOIS Preliminary Approaches for Discussion Internationalized Registration Data Working Group ICANN Meeting, Brussels, Belgium Jeremy.
Advertisements

Update on Whois TF March 25, Objectives of the Task Force 1)Define the purpose of the Whois service. [complete] 2)Define the purpose of the Registered.
Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP Presentation of Final Report.
Protection of Intl Organization Names in new gTLDs ALAC Presentation Brian Peck.
GNSO Working Session on the Vertical Integration PDP 4 December 2010.
Draft Roadmap to Implement SAC 051 Steve Sheng, ICANN 1.
© 2003 Public Interest Registry Whois Workshop Introduction to Registry/Registrar Issues Presented by Bruce W. Beckwith VP, Operations June 23, 2003 Serving.
Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP: Initial Report Julie Hedlund / Lars Hoffmann.
GNSO Policy Development Process. “The PDP is broken”….. Photo credit: 2013 NYCitywoman.
Cairo 2 November Agenda  Guidebook overview  Supporting and explanatory materials  Guidebook Module detail  Probable timelines 2.
Policy Update Marika Konings. Agenda 2 Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings Fake Renewal Notices.
#ICANN51 Saturday 11 October 2014 Next Session: Update - Policy & Implementation Working Group Presenter: J. Scott Evans (Co-Chair) More information:
Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) Proposal Comments Sue Todd, Director, Product Management Monday 11 May 2009, San Francisco.
Policy & Implementation WG Initial Recommendations Report.
1 Revised: April 29, What is a Web Domain?  A HOSTNAME that identifies one or more IP addresses (web servers)  IP address (Internet Protocol)
#ICANN51 1 Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group Activities Update ICANN Los Angeles Meeting October 2014 Chris Dillon.
Text #ICANN51. Text #ICANN51 15 October 2014 At-large policy round table Holly Raiche Panel 1: Privacy and Proxy 1000 – 1045 Hrs.
RAA Update and WHOIS Validation Workshop Moderated by: Volker Greimann, Gray Chynoweth, Kurt Pritz 12 March 2012.
Registrars SG Briefing- Vertical Integration Special Trademark Issues Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN 8 March 2010.
Fake Renewal Notices. About Mikey 2 3 GNSO working groups: Cross community working groups DNS security and stability Fake renewal notices Fast flux Inter.
1 Updated as of 1 July 2014 Issues of the day at ICANN WHOIS KISA-ICANN Language Localisation Project Module 2.3.
Policy Update Registrar Stakeholder Group Meeting Policy Department, 15 March 2011.
Transfer Task Force: WLS 1 DRAFT Deletions, Solutions and WLS Bucharest ICANN Meeting June 2002.
Final Report on Improvements to the RAA Steve Metalitz 5 December 2010.
Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice & Competition Presenter: Steve DelBianco Chair: Rosemary Sinclair.
Trademarks-You can’t not use them! Michelle Petrone-Fleming, In-House Counsel.
ACSP Report – Review of Open Suggestions Nate Davis.
RrSG Meeting Singapore 2011 Registrar Liaison Team.
#ICANN49 Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part D PDP Working Group.
Michael Yakushev, cctld.ru Board Member.  WHOIS existed before ICANN (1982-)  Review of WHOIS Policy is prescribed by AoC (2009)  Review Team was formed.
ICANN Update: What Next for Trademark Owners? 22 nd Annual Fordham Int’l IP Law & Policy Conference 25 April 2014.
Text. #ICANN49 Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group Thursday 27 March 2014 – 08:00.
GNSO Public Forum Dr Bruce Tonkin Chair, GNSO Council Lisbon, 29 March 2007.
ccTLD IDN Report ccTLD Meeting, Montreol June 24, 2003 Young-Eum
IRTP Part D PDP WG Items for Review. Items for Review Policy Development Process WG Charter GNSO WG Guidelines.
Policy Update. Agenda Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Thick Whois PDP IRTP Part D PDP Policy & Implementation Other efforts?
Transfer Task Force: WLS 1 DRAFT Deletions, Solutions and WLS Updated on July 10 for NC meeting on July 11 Based on Bucharest ICANN Meeting -June 2002.
Policy Update for the Registrar Stakeholder Group Margie Milam, Marika Konings, Liz Gasster.
Transfers Task Force Briefing ICANN Domain Names Council Meeting March 12, 2002 Registry Registrar BRegistrar A.
New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Steve Chan | APRALO-APAC Hub Webinar | 28 September 2015.
Contractual Compliance Registrar Stakeholder Group Constituency Pam Little 9 March 2010.
Proposals for Improvements to the RAA June 22, 2010.
1 1 The GNSO Role in Internet Governance Presented by: Chuck Gomes Date: 13 May 2010.
#ICANN51 1 Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) PDP Working Group Status Report & Activity Update ICANN51 11 October 2014 Don Blumenthal,
DAC 8 Renewal proposal to ICANN October 11, 2005 Geneva.
Applicant Support JAS WG Update ICANN Silicon Valley Meeting March
#ICANN50 Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group Activities Update ICANN London Meeting June 2014 Chris Dillon and Rudi.
Securing Future Growth: Getting Ready for IPv6 NOW! ccTLD Workshop, 8 th April 2011 Noumea, New Caledonia Miwa Fujii, Senior IPv6 Program Specialist, APNIC.
RrSG Working Groups Status Update James M. Bladel, GoDaddy.com Reston, VA Mar 2010.
Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation Anne Aikman-Scalese, SCI Chair | ICANN-52 | February 2015.
Contractual Compliance Update – Registrars David Giza June 2010.
ICANN Public Forum 27 March 2014 Work on protecting International Governmental Organization (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO)
IRTP Part B PDP Final Report Overview. Background Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Straightforward process for registrants to transfer domain names.
Update on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (CCI) WG Rosemary Sinclair.
Text #ICANN49 Policy & Implementation Working Group Update.
Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG Graeme Bunton, Vice Chair | ICANN-52 | February 2015.
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Presentation of Initial Report.
Update to ALAC on the RAA Negotiations Margie Milam 26 June 2012.
How to complete and submit a Final Report through Mobility Tool+ Technical guidelines Authentication, Completion and Submission 1 Antonia Gogaki IT Officer.
Trademark Claims Services
Implementation Review Team Meeting
Registration Abuse Policies WG
ICANN’s Policy Development Activities
- Period before Tenders Submission –
Update on ICANN Domain Name Registrant Work
IDN Variant TLDs Program Update
Voter Eligibility & Confirmation of Residency
HB4034 – Duplicate Batch Process
Expedited Policy Development Process on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Name of Presenter Event Name DD Month 2018.
ON EUROPEAN TRADEMARKS AND DESIGNS
Presentation transcript:

Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP WG ICANN – San Francisco March 2011

To what extent should registrants be able to reclaim their domain names after they expire? Issue brought to the GNSO by ALAC PDP initiated in June 2009 (unanimous vote) PEDNR WG examines five questions relating to expiration and renewal practices and policies WG is expected to make recommendations for best practices and / or consensus policies Background 2

Initial Report Published in May 2010 – did not include any recommendations WG reviewed public comments and continued deliberations Published proposed Final Report on 21 Feb containing 14 recommendations Public comment forum open until 7 April Recent Developments 3

The WG believes that our recommendations: will provide additional guarantees to registrants; will improve registrant education and comprehension; are in line with current registrar practices and will have minimal impact on most registrars and other affected stakeholders. Summary of Recommendation 4

#1 – Define “Registered Name Holder at Expiration (RNHaE) to identify the entity or individual eligible to renew the domain name registration prior to expiration #2- Provide a minimum of 8 days after expiration when RNHaE can renew, and disable normal operation during that time to attract the attention of the RNHaE #13 – The page shown following expiration (if registrar changes DNS resolution) must explicitly say that the domain has expired and give instructions on how to redeem the registration #3 - Changes to WHOIS after expiration must not alter the RNHaE ability to renew Recommendations - 1 5

#6 – Registrar website should state any fee(s) charged for renewal following expiration #9 – The registration agreement and web-site must clearly indicate what methods will be used to deliver notification messages #10 & #12 - At least two notices prior to expiration at set times, one after expiration #11 – Notifications of expiration must include methods that do not require explicit action other than standard e- mail receipt Recommendations - 2 6

#4 & #5 – All unsponsored gTLDs and registrars must offer Redemption Grace Period (RGP) #8 – ICANN to develop educational materials about how to prevent unintended loss #7 – Registrars to provide link to ICANN published web content providing educational materials on registrant responsibilities and gTLD domain name life-cycle #14 – If post-expiration notifications are normally sent to a point of contact using the domain in question, post- expiration notifications should be sent to some other contact point associated with the registrant if one exists (best practice) Recommendations - 3 7

A number of these recommendations will need further refinement, as noted in some of the bracketed language that can be found in the report. We need your input! Recommendations 8

Public comment forum open until 7 April Please participate: comment/public-comment en.htm#pednr-proposed-final-report comment/public-comment en.htm#pednr-proposed-final-report WG will review comments received and finalize report for submission to GNSO Council Next Steps 9

Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Proposed Final Report - dnr-proposed-final-report-21feb11- en.pdf dnr-proposed-final-report-21feb11- en.pdf PEDNR Public Comment Forum - comment/public-comment en.htm#pednr-proposed-final-report comment/public-comment en.htm#pednr-proposed-final-report Further Information 10

Questions?

Define “Registered Name Holder at Expiration (RNHaE) to identify the entity or individual eligible to renew the domain name registration prior to expiration RAA did not explicitly state who is allowed to renew after expiration Since many registration agreements allow the Registrar to alter WHOIS after expiration, it could not be assumed that the WHOIS entry pointed to the “registrant” who should be allowed to renew Recommendation #1 12

Provide a minimum of 8 days after expiration when RNHaE can renew, and disable normal operation during that time to attract the attention of the RNHaE Today, most registrars provide more than 8 days and most disable normal operation during some or all of this period. Nothing in this policy requires them to change The 8 (or more) days of disabled operation can start immediately after expiration, or at some later point in the 45 day Registry Auto-renew Grace Period Recommendation #2 13

Changes to WHOIS after expiration must not alter the RNHaE ability to renew This is the operational aspect of the RNHaE definition. Recommendation #5 addresses the similar issue for the Redemption Grace Period (RGP) Recommendation #3 14

All unsponsored gTLDs and registrars must offer Redemption Grace Period (RGP ) When RGP developed, many of the people involved in the original RGP discussions expected that it would be adopted as a Consensus Policy, but steps were never taken to do this. Most current unsponsored gTLDs offer the RGP The Applicant Guidebook for new gTLDs does not include the requirement for an RGP Most Registrar allow RGP redemptions, but there is no requirement that they do so Recommendations #4 & #5 15

Registrar website should state any fee(s) charged for renewal following expiration The 2004 Expired Domain Deletion Policy PDP required that the RGP fee be posted, but not the regular renewal fee Recommendation #6 16

#7 – Registrars to provide link to ICANN published web content providing educational materials on registrant responsibilities and gTLD domain name life-cycle #8 – ICANN to develop educational materials about how to prevent unintended loss WG universally believed that lack of understanding and no easy way to address this was #1 problem. Two recommendations started as different concepts but got a bit confused as recommendations evolved. Need to be cleaned up Recommendations #7 & #8 17

The registration agreement and web-site must clearly indicate what methods will be used to deliver notification messages Currently we expect registrants to renew following notifications, but often we do not tell them where notifications will be sent Recommendation #9 18

At least two notices prior to expiration at set times, one after expiration Two notices prior to expiration a current requirement, but stated in a very obtuse way in the RAA. This will make it clearer Post-expiration notices are already sent by many Registrars Timing of pre-expiration notices: 30±4 days, 7±3 days. Exception policy to allow for business models where this timing does not make sense (perhaps non- standard contract periods) Recommendations #10 & #12 19

Notifications of expiration must include methods that do not require explicit action other than standard receipt Registrant should not need to take unusual actions to receive notification Recommendation #11 20

The page shown following expiration (if registrar changes DNS resolution) must explicitly say that the domain has expired and give instructions on how to redeem the registration If a splash/parking page of some sort is presented, it should make clear that this is associated with an expired domain that can still be renewed and provide instructions on how to renew (perhaps a link to click on or where to call) Many Registrars already do this Recommendation #13 21

If post-expiration notifications are normally sent to a point of contact using the domain in question, post-expiration notifications should be sent to some other contact point associated with the registrant if one exists (best practice) Many registrants direct all of their contact s addresses to the domain being registered Thus, sent after the domain is disabled will not be delivered No registrar we surveyed factored that in when sending post-expiration s Although WG thought that this was useful, we acknowledge that it may be difficult to implement Recommendation #14 22