ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting Thursday 13 January 2005

  • To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting Thursday 13 January 2005
  • From: Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:57:57 -0500
  • Cc: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <41DC7922.8040003@tucows.com>
  • References: <200501051341.j05DfmWt008323@turbo.aim.be> <41DC7922.8040003@tucows.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)

Fellow councilors

i believe that these are issues that need to be worked out between the Registries and Registrars (with the assistance of ICANN staff). I don't really see the need for creation of consensus policies (as outlined in Philip's e-mail) to deal with these issues.

ken Stubbs

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:


I believe that I understand the intent of this motion, and I don't think I disagree with it, but might I suggest that we instead look at this issue in the context of the stability of the DNS and the registration and management function instead of the market and operational slant that found in the current overview and motion?

In other words, let's look at this from a policy failure and remediation perspective instead of attempting to navigate business models and operational practices.

(happy new year everyone!)

On 1/5/2005 8:49 AM Philip Sheppard noted that:

Bruce, would you be kind enough to table this resolution for the 13 January
Council meeting on behalf of the BC?

Issue - Re-selling of valuable deleted domain names in a secondary market

The typical model for selling deleted TLDs is first-come first-served and
this works well for ordinary names where the profit to registries and
registrars is small and similar.  But it does not work for special names
where the domain name equity is much higher, either because the name has
perceived value, or there is a desirable level of associated traffic with the name. A secondary market has grown up to remarket the names. Some names are bought for speculative resell; others because they have traffic still
active and are resold to redirect the traffic to other, sometimes
undesirable, sites. This market has created a new business opportunity for
registrars and a problem for the registries. Certain registrars are
"slaming" the registries with automated requests for desirable names.
Because the present system provides equal access to all registrars, some
registrars have created new ICANN accredited daughter registrars whose sole
purpose is to request deleted names - thus increasing the chance for the
parent registrar to get desirable names. This massive set of requests is affecting the ability of the registrars to manage their existing bona fide business efficiently. This impacts on stability. The implication of these
new types of ICANN accredited registrars needs to be assessed.

Council needs to investigate the issue fully and so should consider the need
for a PDP with a request for ICANN staff to write an issues report.

Draft resolution
Whereas the re-selling of certain deleted or expiring names has lead to
unforeseen strains on the ability of registries and registrars to manage
their business efficiently,
Whereas this affects the service level provided to users and the meaning of
ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars,

Council resolves,
to request the ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as specified
in annex A to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Re-selling of valuable
deleted/expiring domain names in a secondary market", so that Council can subsequently decide if a policy development process would be appropriate.

Many thanks

PS I am open to friendly amendments to improve the wording of the resolution
should this help clarity.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>