[ga] Care needed over the .travel Registry Agreement

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I wonder what provisions ICANN propose to make to ensure that a restricted TLD like .travel does not get "invaded" by uncertified "gatecrashers" like the thousands who have obtained domains in recent weeks from another restricted TLD: .pro?

The registrar EnCirca used a loophole in the ICANN Registry Agreement to act as "proxy registrant" for thousands of customers, so that the applicants could avoid the rigorous checks and authorisations which were meant to "restrict" the TLD to certain categories of users.

Now we have the prospect of .travel, also intended to be restricted to authorised categories of people, but what is there to stop the same device being used to get round the "roadblock", with one eligible entity using their eligibility to act as "proxy registrant" to thousands of unchecked and unauthorised domain speculators and, in theory, the entire human race?

This seems a matter which needs urgent attention over the drafting of the agreement, or history may repeat itself, and the whole concept of "restricted TLDs" will be called into question.

I would also argue that ICANN should reserve the right, in the wording of the Agreement, to enforce amendments to this Agreement, where it considers that the integrity and stability of the registry is threatened - see, for example, the wording for the .us TLD:

http://www.nic.us/registrars/accreditation/usTLD_AdministratorRegistrar_Agreement.pdf

"usTLD Administrator reserves the right to deny, cancel or transfer any registration that it deems necessary, in its discretion; (1) to protect the integrity and stability of the registry" (my thanks to the ICANN director who pointed this up to me earlier this week, stressing the word "Integrity")

I would argue that ICANN should reserve the right, not only to cancel registrations that undermine the integrity of the TLD and its Agreement, but also the right to intervene and amend the Registry Agreement itself, where blatant loopholes are discovered and exploited. This right of intervention and amendment should be a unilateral right, if the TLD itself will not co-operate.

Yrs,

Richard Henderson