ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


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

[ga] Re: [Registrants-rights] (no subject)

  • To: registrants-rights@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, imatx26@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, icann-board@xxxxxxxxx, OnGuardOnline@xxxxxxx, SenateWebmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [ga] Re: [Registrants-rights] (no subject)
  • From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:59:02 -0500 (GMT-05:00)

All,

  IMO, ICANN should not be 'Holding' domain names that have
expired or have not been renewed for resale by resellers some
of which are directly affiliated with the original Registrar, but
should simply go back into the pool for anyone to register
if they so choose at the normal registration price.  However
some years ago now ICANN created a 'Reseller' process that
allows for such shanagans.  Frankly I agree with you this
smacks of a form of extortion as you disscribe it below if
your description is accurate, as does the 'reseller' process
that ICANN created.  Why the USG or the state of Calif. allows
for this sort of thing to continue unchallanged seems very
odd to me... However many of us have complained of this sort
of very questionable behavior on the part of ICANN Accredited
Registrars in the past but such fell of deaf or unconcerned
ears then. 

  It's reasonable clear that ICANN's Registrars are of the
belief that any domain Name originally registered with that
Registrar belongs to them forever unless the original registrant
transferred it and therefore have some sort of 'Right' to control
same indefinately even if the registration expires or is not
renewed by the original registrant.  That seems to logically
and ethically to be a VERY questionable policy and/or practice
at a minimum.  


-----Original Message-----
>From: September Amyx <septemberamyx@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Jul 19, 2010 4:12 PM
>To: registrants-rights@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [Registrants-rights] (no subject)
>
>
>
> I called ICANN in the USA the other day because I was upset to find that a 
>registrar was holding an unregistered domain. In order to buy that domain they 
>will consider a bid for over $100 by submitting $10 with that bid.
>That used to be called extortion.
>I thought when all this started about licensing registrars so there is a 
>modicum 
>of control and accountability with domain names, that this was precisely the 
>problem predicted. I was sure that was why ICANN etc was created.
>So I read the contract that ICANN now uses, and it's very obvious that ICANN 
>wants no accountability from a registrar as to maintaining a database of 
>whois. 
>Because the way the contract is set up, the only way anyone would know for 
>sure 
>that the domain is registered is to call the Registrar. It states clearly in 
>the 
>contract that Registrars can merely fill out the actual domain name owner with 
>the Registrars information. So now there is no accountability at all for 
>registrars to put names back into the pool. Every domain name a registrar 
>registers, is now automatically owned by the registry. If you decide you don't 
>want a domain name any longer, once you end the registration it's owned by the 
>registry to drop back into the pot IF and when they want.
>So, am I understanding this correctly? Is this the list that is created to 
>give 
>input on exactly this kind of information?
>_______________________________________________
>Registrants-rights mailing list
>Registrants-rights@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registrants-rights_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>RAA WG Online: https://st.icann.org/RAA-Policy

Regards,

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 300+k members/stakeholders and growing, 
strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 214-244-4827



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