Minutes of the Registrar Advisory Group Meeting

Held Thursday 5 August 2004 – Parklane Motor Inn, Takapuna

Present: Tim John, Mark Mackay, Lee Miller, Peter Mott, Craig St George, Dave Baker, Nick Griffin, Debbie Monahan

Apologies: Peter Mancer

1. 2LD Draft Policy

There were two main parts to this discussion. The first focused on the moderation policy and how moderation was managed within the .nz SRS. The second part of the discussion was around the proposed 'new 2LD enrolment process'.

Moderation

Members raised the issue of moderation and the ability at present for a moderator to select only one registrar for the moderated 2LD. The registrars sought a policy that enabled all registrars to register moderated domains to prevent capture of the 2LD, collusion and possible excessive prices.

Currently, the SRS is not involved in any part of the moderation policy with a registration of a moderated 2LD going through to registration like any unmoderated 2LD. Thus, it requires moderation of the application before it is submitted to the SRS.

Registrars commented that they would like to see the SRS amended to cope with multiple registrars submitting applications for moderated 2LDs, with some sort of process in place to ensure they were accepted by the moderator. They felt that the process should be as seamless as possible for the registrars with the manual work required being put onto the moderator to complete. Two options were discussed:

• pre-approval process. This would involve the moderator notifying a domain name and registrant name as being approved. Where an application was submitted that had both the domain name and registrant name matching that already approved, the name would be registered. An error message would be generated if there was not a matching pre-approval.
• "pending moderation" process. This would involve a name submitted for registration in a moderated 2LD being 'stopped' at the registry as requiring moderation. A message would be sent to the moderator and they would have a set period of time to approve or decline.

Proposed new 2LD enrolment process

The registrars agreed with the policy position of a threshold and testing the market, but disagreed with the proposed process to manage it. They believed all registrations should be through the authorised registrars.

The reasons for their position included:

• Registrants would get confused with registering a domain name with the DNC in one instance but not being able to do so the next time they wanted a .nz domain name
• There was no incentive on registrars to promote the new 2LD as they wouldn't be taking the registrations
• Registrars were prepared to invest time and money in getting ready for new 2LDs but this process didn't encourage that behaviour

The DNC agreed that it was preferable for all registrations to be through the registrars and outlined the reasons for the process proposed as going through the DNC. If the issues could be addressed then registration through registrars was the way to proceed.

It was suggested that:

• InternetNZ should ensure the name is promoted and people are aware of the process. Any links should be to the DNC page that lists all the registrars.
• The period for a 2LD to reach the threshold should be one month
• There are no obligations on any party to refund money received through this process. NZRS does not refund registrars if the name fails, and registrars are not obliged to refund registrants, though they may choose to do so.
• Names registered will be active and delegated
• Registrations are for a maximum of 3 months - this is to avoid registrars charging big amounts for long registration terms and then the name not passing. Thus, it is likely that most registrants would be charged less than $20 or so
• People who are really keen for a domain name in a new 2LD will register quickly to ensure they get the name/s they want. They won't really care about potentially losing a few $$$. However, speculators may choose not to register a whole lot of names in case it doesn't go through as they won't want to lose their money.
• Registrars will not want the name to fail as, even without necessarily refunding any monies they get, they would still have invested time and money in planning and promoting the new 2LD. Thus, registrars have an incentive to encourage it so if it fails it truly deserves to.
• Names should be locked after they are registered to ensure no changes can be made until the 2LD has passed the threshold. This will prevent speculators getting names and then on-selling them without advising the new registrant that the name might not be in place in a month's time.
• Registrars include specific terms and conditions to cover this process. The clauses are to be provided by the DNC for all registrars to use and should include:
• One month 'provisional' period for 2LD to reach threshold
• If threshold not met then 2LD ceases and the domain name is purged
• No guarantee of refunds from registrars
• No changes to details possible until 2LD reaches threshold

The DNC agreed to take these points back to the 2LD Working Group and NZOC.

2. Pending Release Domain Names

NZRS have agreed to make the list of pending release names available to registrars through a 'registrar only' portion of their website. This should be available by October. NZRS will investigate adding this to the protocol also.

The DNC reminded registrars of their obligation to let all names pending release actually be released so they were able to be registered by any other party after becoming available. Registrars are not to get involved in aiding transfers to other registrants thereby preventing the release of the cancelled name.

NZRS will be looking at the option of varying the time when domain names are released after cancellation. This may mean that names are released at any time within 5 days of the pending release period being completed.

3. Latest SRS Update - IPv4/IPv6

Registrars supported the latest change to only send glue records if they were needed. There was a discussion as to whether the SRS should 'ignore' or 'reject' transactions sent with data that wasn't required. Suggestion from the group was that the SRS should 'ignore' the transaction and that NZRS should then work with the registrars who are not able to comply. After a transition period, eg 3 months, the SRS should start rejecting the transactions. This change should be in SRSRPS at the end of the week of 9 August.

4. NZRS Outsourcing

Nick announced that Catalyst were the party selected after the RFP process and that they are now in the negotiation stage with them to finalise the contract. There is no impact on registrars from this work.

5. General Update on NZRS work plan

• NZRS are updating their website to include a registrars' only section
• NZRS are looking at how the zone file system is structured and a review of the software is to happen over the next 2-3 months that would potentially enable real time updates but that has not been decided yet.
• TSIG is now in place for the .nz DNS. Nick provided a brief overview of the issues around DNSSEC including zone walking. This is not an issue for registrars at present.

6. General Update on DNC work plan

• The DNC referred to the reviews of the Whois and Roles and Responsibilities policies.
• There was a discussion about a Dispute Resolution process for .nz and the DNC spoke about her recent trip overseas which included visits to learn about various options for a dispute resolution process. She outlined how the process worked at Nominet UK for the .uk domain names and said that she was working with the Chair of the Working Group on advancing this.

  The DNC advised the group that NZOC had agreed in principle to a dispute resolution process and that work would continue on advancing this.

  All registrars present unanimously agreed that a dispute resolution process was needed in New Zealand and offered their support in getting one operational. They also commented that this should be in place when the new 2LD policy came into force and new 2LDs were potentially going to be implemented.




• Copies of the market share pie chart published by AusRegistry for the .au market were circulated. The DNC then also circulated how the .nz market share chart would look if produced along the same lines as the Australian model. The group agreed that the .nz stats should be published, as a pie chart, using the top 4 registrars, next 4 registrars and remaining registrars as per the Australian model. This would enable a view of the market breakdown in New Zealand and also enable a direct comparison with Australia.

  It was agreed that the pie chart would be produced from September, using the August statistics, and that historical figures would also be produced.




• Communication pamphlets are going to be produced. The first is targeted at the general public and covers off what a domain names is and how to get one, with a focus on .nz. The second pamphlet is targeted at .nz registrants and goes through their obligations and expectations.

  Registrars asked for information about UDAIs to be clearly spelt out for registrants so they are aware the UDAI isn’t required to change ISPs etc.

  The DNC will check this is covered off clearly in the pamphlet. Copies of the draft pamphlets will be sent to registrars for comments when they are available.

  It was also raised that there needs to be something that targets web designers, ISPs etc and explains about the .nz policies and procedures so they can be aware of what they are required to do. This was something that was planned to do but the DNC agreed to look at prioritising this to do it sooner.

7. Other business

• The issue of how organisations manage DNS services, including time to live, updates and caching, changes of name servers etc was discussed. There is a lot of disparity between different organisations and often it is the customer that is affected by losing email and website services.

  Though the issue is bigger than registrars, the group felt it would be of value to establish some ‘best practice guidelines’ for registrars so they could be seen to be leading the way. Anything developed could then be referred to the InternetNZ Code of Practice team and hopefully end up covering the industry.

  The DNC agreed to start work on such a document.




• Domainz agreed to cease sending an email to the Technical Contact whenever a domain name transfers away from them.