Re: [ga] Policy Needed

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I thank Danny for bringing this policy problem to the attention of ICANN constituents. At the heart of this problem are at least two issues:
1. The obligation ICANN has (through its MoU) to ensure the "fair distribution" of domain names, with the implication that access to domains should be open to all.
2. The historic failure of ICANN to enforce its own Agreements with Registries and Registrars - in this case with specific reference to "warehousing" and now with the imminent crisis over expiring domain names.

The problem with the expiring domain names is that influential registrars are running ahead of the game, and ahead of ICANN's own policy making, by effectively 'warehousing' all expiring domains with a view to re-sale for a profit... something clearly NOT envisaged in their original Agreements. For a long time I have urged the implementation of a mandatory code of minimum standards for registrars - with the 'right of access to registries' made dependent on adherence to these standards.

We saw a similar problem with certain registrars warehousing domains at the time of the .info and .biz launches. This was brought to the attention of ICANN, but ICANN refused to act (I presume, because the references to 'warehousing' were perceived to be advisory and not mandatory). But behind this 'de facto' policy creation be registrars is the "laissez faire" attitude of ICANN, which has failed to foresee problems, or insist on adherence to Agreements.

There is a further problem with the issue of expiring domains. What these 'breakaway' registrars are proposing is in fact scarcely worse than the present status quo. The truth is that acquisition of desired new domains (following expiry) has been hijacked by a very small number of businesses such as Pool, Buy Domains, Snapnames who basically hire (or create) as many registrars as possible, and then run scripts (with registration requests running to hundreds of thousands per domain name) which make it almost impossible for members of the general public to acquire their desired domains.

Why is the proposed new action of Netsol, Tucows and Dotster any worse than this?

I proposed some time ago an open and accessible system for the re-release of expiring domain names. I proposed:

1. All expiring domains should be publicly and openly *listed* by the Registry. The general public should have ease of access to the full list of expiring domains. (I know you can get details from websites like 'DeletedDomains.com' but it should simply be an open list which everyone can access direct from the Registry.

2. The existing registrant should have a period, as at present, to redeem/recover the name (to account for last minute hitches, absence on vacation, illness, human error).

3. There should then be an auction system or a round-robin process by which the expiring domains are purchased and registered *directly through the Registry* but with the Registrant selecting a Registrar to finalise the transaction.

Underlying all this, as Danny has pointed out, is the need for policy... and, more importantly, for the implementation of policy.

Yrs,

Richard Henderson
atlarge.org

Copy of background to warehousing in mail sent by Michael Palage a while back:

> Hello All:
>
> I would like to provide a little historical background into the
> "warehousing" issue. Unfortunately this has been an issue that has been a
> focal point since the second registrar meeting in Chile (Summer 2000).
> During that meeting, this issue surfaced in connection with credit card
> charge backs. Specifically what was a registrar to do if after registering
a
> domain name the registrar was to lose payment in connection with a credit
> card charge back. Several CORE members (if my memory serves me correct
> Amadeau, Bob Connelly & Ken Stubbs were very vocal on this topic) talked
> about the registrar deleting the name and eating the then ($9) registry
fee
> as a cost of doing business.
>
> Lauren Gaviser (RCOM's then Policy Person) objected based upon the grounds
> that this requirement would prohibit registrars from potentially reselling
> the name to another party in an attempt to recoup their initial lose.
> Heading into the fall meeting in LA (Fall 2000), the Registrar focus
shifted
> toward bring NSI into the ICANN family and having them become an ICANN
> accredited registrar.
>
> In early 2001, the Registrar Constituency refocused its effort on
> warehousing in connection with a Code of Conduct. In the ICANN Registrar
> Accreditation Agreement there are two provisions that are relevant for
this
> discussion.
>
> Section 3.7.1 which states:
>
> In the event ICANN adopts a specification or policy, supported by a
> consensus of ICANN-Accredited registrars, establishing or approving a Code
> of Conduct for ICANN-Accredited registrars, Registrar shall abide by that
> Code.
>
> and Section 3.7.9 which states:
>
> Registrar shall abide by any ICANN adopted specifications or policies
> prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names
by
> registrars.
>
> The Code of Conduct Task Force was headed up by Richard Lindsay in the
> Spring and Summer of 2000. After several telephone conferences and in
person
> meetings, the biggest being in Yokohama, Japan a document was produced.
> However, instead of calling it a Code of Conduct, I believe it was called
a
> Best Practices Document. I was not an active participant in this group so
do
> not hold me to the exact sequence of events. I believe the last revision
of
> this document currently appears on the Registrar website at
> http://www.icann-registrars.org/html%20docs/CodeofConduct3.htm.
>
> I seem to remember that there was a debate over how this document would be
> adopted by ICANN so that it would be enforced against all registrars. Much
> the like Transfer and WLS debacles, there was discussion of whether this
> needed to go through the DNSO Names Council to receive input from other
> constituencies or if this could have just been adopted by the Board. Scary
> how history repeats itself. During the Summer and Fall of 2000, the
majority
> of the constituency was distracted with the new TLD proof of concept
> process.
>
> Although there was talk of trying to get this initiative back on track in
> the new year, ICANN and VeriSign sprung the Restructuring contracts on us
in
> March of 2001. Heading into the Summer and Fall of 2001, Transfer and WLS
> moved to the forefront and the Code of Conduct has remained on the back
> burner.
>
> Now that we are back in the present, I agree that warehousing needs to be
> addressed as well as whois data mining, transfers and other issues that
> directly impact day to day registrar operations. Historically I believe it
> would not be prudent to attempt a comprehensive Code of Conduct. When this
> was tried in the past different fractions , based upon different registrar
> business models, formed to prevent meaningful progress. I would
respectfully
> submit that the best way to go is to start off  with a Code of Conduct
> skeleton, and then add pieces to it in an incremental manner. By tackling
> the problems one at a time, you will be able to get consensus on each
items
> instead of the whole document. Much like running a marathon you have to
run
> each mile one at a time.
>
> Hopefully this provided some insight into the Registrar Warehousing
problem.
> Although there is a mechanism for us to resolve this problem, nothing will
> happen until action is taken.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mike

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Danny Younger 
  To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 11:47 PM
  Subject: [ga] Policy Needed


  The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (section 4.2) indicates that new and revised specifications and policies may be established on the topic of "prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registries or registrars"; I ask that the Names Council initiate a Policy Development Process on this topic in view of recent events first noted in the ICANN Advisory "Registrar Expired Name Market Developments" posted 21 September 2004.  

  At issue:  If registrants fail to renew their domain names at the conclusion of an expiration grace period, certain registrars are planning to auction the rights to these domain names, instead of allowing them to "drop back into the pool" of names available for re-registration on a first-come, first-served basis, as is currently the process.

  Discussion on this issue has already begun in the At-Large Forum and on the Registrars Discussion List wherein it has already been noted by the Registrars Constituency Chair that "registrars are modifying their contracts to take over the ownership of the name after expiry; the registrant has changed, and the registrar is themselves the new registrant." 

  I see an effort designed to thwart the implementation of the Expired Domain Deletion Policy which is scheduled to commence 21 December 2004.  A policy is needed to deal with these developments.

  Thank you for considering this matter.

  Best regards,

  Danny Younger

  dannyyounger(at)yahoo.com