Re: [ga] NSI & Expired domain names -- violation of consensus deletions policy??

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

  Seems yet again ICANN as it has it the past decided to claim a consensus
in favor of pandering to special interests such as SnapBack, which was
started by some "Friends" of the ICANN BoD and staff some time back...
Interesting that such a claimed consensus was not vetted by
stakeholders/users
or same able to vote their opinion or position on such a proposed policy...

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> At the Carthage, Tunisia meeting of the ICANN Board, the minutes:
>
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-31oct03.htm
>
> *adopted* the Deletion Policy Recommendations of the GNSO (see the
> heading "Adoption of GNSO Council Domain Deletion Policy
> Recommendations" in the minutes)
>
> The deletions policy is at:
>
> http://www.icann.org/carthage/deletes-topic.htm
>
> My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that those are now
> *Consensus Policies".
>
> 1) Why, as a Consensus Policy, is it not listed at:
>
> http://www.icann.org/general/consensus-policies.htm
>
> 2) Several new services would appear to be in violation of the
> Consensus Deletions Policy. In particular, Network Solutions will now
> auction expired domains BEFORE they would have naturally deleted:
>
> http://www.networksolutions.com/en_US/name-it/pending.jhtml
>
> As per the announcement by SnapNames at:
>
> http://www.domainstate.com/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=33201
>
> "Starting today, if a domain name at Network Solutions expires and is
> not renewed, the domain will immediately be awarded to the holder of a
> SnapBack subscription on that name. If there is more than one SnapBack
> subscription on a particular name, the name will become the object of a
> short auction among the interested parties, andwill be eventually
> awarded to the auction winner.
>
> Network Solutions will start checking to see if domains have a SnapBack
> on them within a few hours from now. Any Netsol registered names with
> an expiry date of 8/12, 8/13 or 8/14 could be part of this, so you may
> want to enter those domains into your SN account as soon as possible."
>
> 3) It is my belief that the above system violates the consensus policy,
> in particular:
>
> "At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on behalf
> of the Registered Name Holder to consent that the registration be
> renewed within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall,
> in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of
> the registration by the end of the auto-renew grace period (although
> registrars may choose to cancel the name earlier)."
>
> The relevant wording is "shall.....result in cancellation" (NOT "may").
> NSI appears to be taking control of the relevant domains, without
> explicit permission of the Registered Name Holders, in order to profit
> from their expiry, when it appears to be their duty that the domains be
> cancelled, to provide equivalent access to all other registrars to
> register the cancelled domain name.
>
> 4) By virtue of NSI's former monopoly (meaning they have control of
> many of the best expiring domains, which were registered in the early
> 1990s), this new system is anti-competitive, forcing prospective
> registrants to continue to deal with Network Solutions and its partners
> for the registration of the desired domain name, instead of the
> current method where the name would expire and be caught using a
> variety of competitive domain-catching services.
>
> 5) ICANN should put a stop to this practice, and ensure that domains
> are either deleted, OR that any such auctions take place only with
> explicit permission of the Registered Name Holders (without the
> registrar stepping in as a "proxy", having transferred the domains to
> themselves without the permission of the prior registrant). "Explicit"
> would be "opt-in", and NOT a *failure* to opt-out.
>
> 6) The above system by NSI appears to also violate the principles of
> the Redemption Grace Period, because names would be siphoned off to
> SnapNames bidders BEFORE the domains would have entered RGP. This
> obviously hurts existing registrants, through the usurpation of their
> rights by NSI.
>
> 8) Litigation will almost ceertainly ensue if the above NSI system
> continues. Perhaps ICANN should now step in and do something, to ensure
> that the obligations of registrars are being met?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"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.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827