ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [ga] ICANN's accredited registrars and trying to renew one name

  • To: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ga@xxxxxxxx>, <halloran@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN's accredited registrars and trying to renew one name
  • From: "L. Gallegos" <jandl@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:37:27 -0400
  • Cc: <DannyYounger@xxxxxx>, <vinton.g.cerf@xxxxxxxx>, <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>, <grant_toomey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <twomey@xxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <000c01c36bbd$6550f020$5a54fc3e@r6yll>
  • Reply-to: jandl@xxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I understand your total frustration.  However, I think the approach you're taking is not 
going to do the trick now or in the future.

Personally, the issue your facing could be avoided by making registries go back to 
the thick model and having the registry itself ultimately responsible for ensuring 
there is no hanky panky with domain renewals.  IOW, if a registrar either has 
technical glitch that causes an erroneous transfer or renewal issue (like yours), the 
registry itself should be able to intervene and correct the problem.  The structure of 
the thin model puts all the cards in the hands of each registrar, allowing poor 
business practices to flourish with little or no recourse to the registrant (buyer). It's 
"buyer beware" all the way.  If the registry were the ultimate responsible party, then it 
could be held accountable and could then recover from the misperforming registrar.

I don't think ICANN could or should get into individual consumer issues.  It is not a 
court, the BBB or a comsumer agency.  It could, however, include certain 
performance criteria in its contracts with registries without going as far as regulation 
of a global  industry that just can't really be regulated wit any degree of success.  

Wouldn't you rather see the registry being responsible for making sure you can 
renew your domain?  If the registrar does not comply with basic renewal policy, 
shouldn't NSI be able to *fix* it for you?  They do have ultimate control over the TLD 
zone files, after all.  

Short of removing .com from the root, what do you think ICANN could or should do 
to the registry?  If the registrar were to lose accreditation, how would that remedy 
your  problem? If the industry were regulated, as telcos are in the US, what do you 
think your remedy would be today?  Aside from it potentially taking years to resolve 
using beaurocratic agencies and regulatory bodies, you would most likely not have 
the use of the domain until it was too late for it to be workable.

OTOH, if it were a thick model registry, your issue could be resolved in minutes by 
the registry simply effecting a clerical change and billing the registrar for the cost.

What we have today with the MLM nature of the current thin model is letting the 
registry totally off the hook and giving the registars too much autonomy without 
safeguards when it comes to registrations.  Your situation is a good example of what 
can happen with a bad business model where there is no recourse to the registry, 
which is ultimately in control of the zone.  It doesn't make much sense to me.

We began to see many more problems with the advent of the thin registry model.  I 
think this test has failed.


On 26 Aug 2003 at 11:32, Richard Henderson wrote:

> HelpDoes ICANN accreditation mean nothing?
> During the .biz and .info launches, there were demonstrable cases of
> registrar fraud and registrar abuse of process, but although ICANN was
> given specific detail, they failed to respond to complaints and continue to
> accredit the registrars in question.
> That leaves the disturbing concern that consumers, who see the 'accredited
> by ICANN' label at the sites of these registrars (or on the ICANN site),
> are misled by ICANN to believe that they are trustworthy companies when
> they have actually been shown to have broken rules, and abused process to
> the disadvantage of ordinary consumers.
> ICANN seems to take the view that if these registrars fulfil certain
> technical criteria, then they merit 'accreditation', regardless of the
> business practices, regardless of breach of ICANN agreements, regardless of
> harm to the consumer.
> The appalling abuse of the ICANN-Registry-Registrar agreements by some
> registrars during the New TLDs launch has been archived and demonstrated in
> posts to this list, in posts at ICANNWatch, and  - with no response - in
> posts to ICANN's Registrar Liaison Executive, Mr Dan Halloran.
> Let me give you a more recent example of the failure of ICANN's
> accreditation system, an example which is all too familiar to many internet
> users when they attempt to transfer or renew their domain names.
> I have been making plans for a year to create a website where - with the
> sanction of their schools - pupils from all over the world can communicate
> together, can share their life experiences, and hopefully build better
> understanding between nations. I have been in contact with schools from
> many nations and every continent (excluding Antarctica). I have trialled
> the process at a subsidiary site. I centred my project on what I felt was
> the very appropriate domain name TheHumanRace.com.
> One ordinary individual wanting to use the Internet, and dependent on the
> structures ICANN oversees in order for it all to work.
> However, I have been unable to renew my domain name because the
> ICANN-accredited registrar with whom the name is registered cannot be
> contacted. I have sent repeated e-mails. I have phoned and continue to
> phone daily but there is no answer. And now I see my domain name past its
> renewal date and in the final grace period before the deletion process
> occurs.
> How can ICANN justify accrediting a registrar, if that registrar will not
> meet basic and reasonable and necessary business standards, and if that
> registrar fails in its duties, which include the maintenance and protection
> of names for which it is responsible?
> I formally call on Dan Halloran to act as liaison between ICANN and Libris
> (dba DomReg) and to insist that they renew this domain name and enable
> communication between registrant and registrar (at least, by responding to
> my e-mails).
> In the context of Dan's failure (over 490 days) to respond to any of my
> previous e-mails to him at ICANN, I suppose I might assume this is a
> forlorn hope. It would be possible to suggest a culture of disdain and
> consumer neglect, endemic not only among certain registrars but right at
> the heart of ICANN itself.
> Even Paul Twomey, who I appealed to in person, has failed to respond over a
> 60 day period.
> One person's dismay over his/her problems can of course be marginalised and
> ignored.
> The truly disappointing point is that there are people all over the world
> who experience these kinds of problems with a de-regulated or non-regulated
> registrar industry. The cases can be seen in numerous mailing lists.
> Certain registrars appear again and again. Inaccessible or unresponsive
> outfits who take your money then become almost impossible to contact. Many
> of you will have experienced this kind of thing at some stage.
> It's also disappointing for another reason. There are many brilliant
> registrars, conducting efficient businesses, providing time and good
> service. I've been on the phone this morning to Hans-Peter Oswald at
> Secura. He always answers the phone. He is always helpful and courteous.
> His service has been invaluable to me. But it's shameful that his
> reputation as a registrar gets tarnished by the bad reputation created for
> registrars in general by the 'cowboys' who run wild in this de-regulated
> environment.
> Therefore, I strongly argue the case for ICANN setting down - in its
> accreditation arrangements - specific minimum standards of good business
> practice... standards which include responsiveness and accessibility, and
> which also bind registrars to abide by the Agreements ICANN oversees for
> Registries and Registrars. ICANN - in the interests of the Registrar
> community and in the interests of individual consumers - should then
> enforce their minimum standards, by removing accreditation from registrars
> who fail in their basic duties or are caught out abusing the system and
> agreements.
> To fail to do this is to fail the whole internet community.
> ICANN has espoused what Dan Halloran famously called a "Laissez Faire"
> culture. I would call it dereliction of duty and the abandonment of the
> consumer.
> ICANN is supposed to ensure the safe, fair and efficient operation of the
> domain name system. How can it be right that individuals lose their right
> to use names in the system, simply because ICANN allows its accredited
> registrars to abandon their basic responsibilities?
> I have made every effort (and continue to make every effort) to contact
> accredited registrar Libris. They ignore my mail and don't answer the phone
> which I call several times each day.
> I call on Dan Halloran to explain ICANN's position, and request him to
> liaise between ICANN and this registrar, to insist that as an accredited
> registrar Libris must have reasonable contact procedures, and must
> safeguard the domains for which they are responsible.
> I call on Paul Twomey to guarantee this liaison takes place, or to preside
> over an arrogant an unresponsive organisation which ignores the grassroots
> needs of ordinary individuals to fairly use and access the DNS.
> Please could anyone else help save The Human Race. It's for kids who are
> the future of our world.
> Thank you
> ...
> Richard Henderson

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