ページ履歴

...

The final Statement in PDF format is to be added here if the draft below is ratified. 

DRAFT STATEMENT

As you know the Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP was approved by the Board last year and the resultant Policy (now called the Expired Registration Recovery Policy - ERRP) was posted for comment.

The PDP recommended that registrars who operate web site for registration must post their renewal fees and state what method they will use to contact registrants. The recommendation was silent regarding resellers because it was the belief that registrars, in honoring all of the terms of their contract, would require resellers to post this information as well.

Although it was not clear why at the time, ICANN staff working on the resultant changes to the RAA added very welcome wording explicitly requiring that registrars require resellers to post this information as well. The proposed policy can be found athttp://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/consensus-policies/errp/draft-policy-11oct12-en.pdf and the sections in question are paragraphs 4.1.2 and 4.2.3.

There were no negative comments about this in the public comments which were due to close on Nov. 11th. Staff extended the comment period for one more week, and had explicitly called attention to the changes on the Implementation Review Group mailing list and explicitly asking for comments to be posted on this.

Michele Neylon, the registrar who was on the Implementation Review Group submitted a statement to the ERRP Comment saying that the proposed language about resellers was debated at length by the PDP WG and the final decision was to not include such language in the recommendation. That is factually correct and indeed the report made reference to the fact that there was an explicit decision to not include it. His statement can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-errp-policy/msg00001.html.

The ICANN Registrar Relations staff person who I had been working with was unavailable, so I asked compliance whether that was how they saw this as well. The reply was direct and clear that this was not how they interpreted the RAA terms and that the web posting provisions would not apply to resellers unless the explicit. The exchange is appending to this message.

I propose the following:

1. Under my own name but as former Chair of the PEDNR WG and a member of the Implementation Review Team, I will post the statement from Compliance that without the explicit reseller language, that the new Policy will not benefit all Registrants, but only those who deal directly with Registrars, and based on my understanding, that was not the intent of the WG.
2. ALAC should post a statement supporting the need to keep the explicit reseller language. This statement may need to be altered if registrars in the interim post a message agreeing to keep the language.