Re: [ga] Policy Needed

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

  ICANN does not have the ability nor it seems the willingness to
enforce
any policy in such a way as to be effective.  Nor has ICANN shown
the ability or willingness to allow for such meaningful and/or effective

enforcement of policy.  Further, ICANN has shown the desire to limit
any and all interested parties form participating in the development
of any policy, unless you "Drink the coolaid"...

  What you have proposed below Richard was proposed long before
you were actively involved in these discussions and therefore, although
well meaning, is redundant.  Given that fact, ICANN will continue to
be resistant in any way it can to proposals from their view, as the
peanut gallery...

Richard Henderson wrote:

>    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
>
>

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