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

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andy and all,

  I fully agree with your comments and remarks some of which you
stated differently but similar to my previous comments.  

  Many of our American members are very dismayed and embarrassed
that our government before the JPA allowed ICANN to continue down
this ever spiraling path that benifits only Registrars and
resellers and in many ways unfairly at least, punishes both
Registrants and non-registrant-consumers/users in many and
varied ways that have been articulated over and over again.

  So yes indeed where now is my countries FTC and Calif.
AG's office which was and is still fluded with complaints
of this nature.  ???


-----Original Message-----
>From: Andy Gardner <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Jul 19, 2010 6:14 PM
>To: "ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> GA" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: registrants-rights@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, imatx26@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, icann 
>address <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>, OnGuardOnline@xxxxxxx, 
>SenateWebmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx, eddan@xxxxxxx, 
>fbi.dallas@xxxxxxxxxx, ssene@xxxxxxxxxxxx, greg.abbott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 
>jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx, robert.smith1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [Registrants-rights] (no subject)
>
>
>
>It's hugely anti-competitive and anti-comsumer.
>
>A small registrar has no hope of ever competing against the behemoths like 
>Godaddy register.com and Tucows, because those large registrars claim 
>ownership of all domains expiring under their control.
>
>They auction off some, they keep others and monetise them (often under an 
>"arms length" susidiary - see  
>http://domainnamewire.com/2008/12/03/standard-tactics-llc-how-godaddy-profits-from-expired-domains/
> ) but only the chaff gets returned to the deleted domains pool for the 
>smaller registrars to pick through.
>
>The USG just sat there and let ICANN create a monster.
>
>Where is the FTC? The California AG?
>
>
>
>On Jul 19, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
>
>> 
>> 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?


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