Re: [ga] My final post about .Pro and the "Proxy" registrations

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

No! I do not abide by such fatalism. If not you then who?  I fry other fish but I count on you to prepare this last supper. Take this stand and follow it through. I will be your proxy american and give you standing if not amicus curae. I do not agree with your pseudo Englesse socialism. 
But I think I finally got Barbara Boxer and Diane Fienstein to take it to the floor. Yes I am more of the McCain - Jeb Ilk but who cares I am also honorary chair of some commissions. No man of letters has the right to give up.  You got to suck it up and go the extra kilometer.
Think of it this way, you do not want to get up in the morning. but you do. why? One damn foot in front of the other damn foot creates semper fidelis. I hate blood mixed with mud but my good wife gets the picture. She did not meet her father until she was six because he was in reeducation camp, what hell have you suffered? Get back on your high horse and ride it til it drops and then keep charging forward on you feet. 
We need you king richard. 
 
As a servant I need a leader.
 
e

Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Life is too short to get trapped in what Borges called a "repetition of repetitions" - although after .info four years ago and now .pro that is what it feels like... a labyrinth of registration agreements and broken processes, where you meet yourself coming back from a previous repetition, or await a response from this CEO or the last one, with the prospect of hearing from neither.
 
Therefore this is my final post on .Pro (which I have sent to the ICANN Board and relevant ICANN staff).
 
I recognise that they are engaged in a step-by-step process with the .Pro issue.
 
I believe that enforcement should (if necessary) be applied in the case of RegistryPro on the grounds that (I believe) they have breached the ICANN-Registry Agreement.
 
Just to clarify: the issue I think should be investigated is not 'failure to undertake verifications'... it is 'failure to uphold the central and stated principles and purposes of the Agreement, and misuse of the verification processes to bypass the stated purposes of the Agreement.'
 
In short, the problem that concerns me is not lack of use of the verification processes, but misuse of them.
 
The Registry Agreement makes such clear statements of the intention of a "restricted" registry using verification for the purposes of 'keeping unchecked people out', and in practical terms RegistryPro appear to me to have broken their Agreement by ignoring the clear *intentions* of the Agreement and its Verification processes, by actually using verification (1000+  verifications of the same proxy Registrar) to give unchecked people access to domain names reserved for specific sets of professionals. These people, in the words of EnCirca, become the "owners" of these domains. They can use them, sell them, renew them, develop them. The Agreement, in my opinion, has been broken  - breach of its clear purposes and intended outcomes, and misuse of its verification processes to bypass the basic intentions of the Agreement.
 
The Registry Agreement is so clear about its purposes, that misuse of the verification process in such a way as to 'let in' rather than 'keep out' unqualified and unchecked customers, may be regarded as a breach of the Agreement. RegistryPro are responsible for endorsing and activating these proxy registrations and the effects these have on the Registry Agreement.
 
I have suggested to Tina Dam in her investigation of EnCirca and RegistryPro, that she asks:
 
1. Did either party consult ICANN about the implications of this "Proxy" device?
 
2. Did EnCirca carry out any kind of check or verification about their customers? The answer is 'No' - you just had to pay $49 and click.
 
3. Did RegistryPro take any steps to curb the inflow of registrations on behalf of unqualified customers?
 
4. How many .Pro registrations were there, in total, up to the end of December 2004? How many .Pro registrations were there by the end of March 2005?
 
5. Was RegistryPro satisfied that this flood of new registrations was in keeping with the purposes and intentions of the Registry Agreement?
 
... and later in the process...
 
6. Will RegistryPro agree to stop this Proxy 'device' with immediate effect, until a consensus has been arrived at?
 
7. Will RegistryPro agree to amendments that ICANN might propose to their Agreement?
 
8. Will RegistryPro agree to stop all Proxy registrations through registrars, unless the actual customers have been verified?
 
9. Will RegistryPro agree to check and verify all actual customers (not the registrar proxy), at the latest, at the annual renewal when such checks would be due?
 
... and enforcement if necessary ...
 
If RegistryPro do not agree to negotiate a settlement with ICANN, to reclaim the clearly-stated purposes of this restricted sTLD, will ICANN intervene with measures on the grounds of breach of contract/agreement, and misuse of its verification processes to bypass the basic intentions of the Agreement.
 
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
 
I have urged the firmest action (rationally and step-by-step) because otherwise this restricted registry will be opened up more and more, and the precedent of "proxy registration" will have been established for any other restricted sTLD where a registrar or registry chooses, in the future, to circumvent the original purposes and intentions of their Registry Agreement.
 
Basically, the .Pro Registry Agreement was abundantly clear about the purpose and intentions of its verification processes. Those verification processes did not exist in isolation to be used any way people wanted. They existed *in the context of the Agreement's purposes* to uphold those clearly-expressed purposes of restricting access to the TLD to specific and exclusive sets of professionals.
 
The bottom line is: ICANN knows this. RegistryPro knows this. EnCirca knows this. What we have is a loophole through one element of the Registry Agreement. This loophole, consciously exploited for profit, does not nullify the greater expectations and requirements of the rest of the Agreement, of which the verification process was merely a subsidiary part.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Richard Henderson
 
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
 
Postscript - "Compromises"
 
To be fair to the integrity of some people I have discussed this matter with, I will end with their counter-argument. If ICANN - beset by bigger battles and more pressing issues - seeks a compromise on this issue, because of pressure on staff and resources, then the best compromise proposed by people I have discussed this with (not my position, theirs) is that ICANN should allow time to pass so that the present commotion dies down, and then they agree with RegistryPro that domains at the 2nd Level will be opened up to help make the .Pro project financially viable, while certain 3rd Level combinations are reserved for a range of professions. This, they would argue, would respond to market demand and help to make .Pro more viable, not less viable. I don't agree with this line of argument, for all the reasons I have set out above and my concern for integrity of process and the future of sTLDs, but ICANN may decide to consider this 'compromise' along with the option of taking fi!
rmer
 action. My concern is that this will irreparably damage the exclusive purpose and identity of .pro. The proponents of this compromise say that it would strengthen .Pro, citing the small number of registrations, and the vulnerability of the project before EnCirca started its unilateral process.
 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com