Re: [ga] Confused by registrar sale of deleting domains...

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

  ICANN-accredited registrars  are contractually obligated to the
accredited
contracts of which they have signed.  The problem is that ICANN will not

or cannot enforce those contracts very effectively if at all, and the
oversight
of DOC/NTIA in accordance with the White Paper and MoU has the
responsibility to ensure that "no harm is done" to stakeholders/users
via ICANN or it's so called accredited registrars or registries.
However DOC/NTIA is also either unable of unwilling to enforce
these contracts as well.  Hence the result or results similar of much
worse cannot be adequately enforced or have not been.  Leaving the
stakeholder in a catch-22 situation at times when renewal  Domain
names and other areas regarding Domain Name registration is t
without viable or reasonable recourse that is effective at a minimum.

  Perhaps as such, this would be grounds for a civil damage suit?

Richard Henderson wrote:

>    PMy thanks to Danny Younger for his observations in reply to my
> message:
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg01908.html
> concerning Pool and Namescout's practice of offering unrenewed domain
> names for auction and transfer, which appears to bypass the Redemption
> Grace principle and (since introduction of EDDP on Dec 21st) appears
> to be in breach of Namescout's contractual obligation to delete such
> names, in line with their acceptance of EDDP, as required by all
> ICANN-accredited registrars with effect from Dec 21st.
>
> Specifically:
>
> Expired Domain Deletion Policy implements the following amendments to
> the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, and requires:
>
> 3.7.5.2:  that the registrar must not renew the domain name without
> the registrant's consent "except in extenuating circumstances"
>
> 3.7.5.7: that the domain name must be deleted within 45 days of the
> termination of the original registration agreement
>
> Furthermore, according to the amended RAA:
>
> 3.7.5.7: The registrant retains the right under the existing
> redemption grace period provisions to recover the name at any time
> during the Redemption Grace Period, and retains the right to renew the
> name before it is deleted.
>
> I therefore call on Tim Cole to require that Namescout adhere to the
> RAA and the EDDP with immediate effect, both in the case of the three
> domain names I have cited and in the case of all other domains which
> they are currently offering or intend in future to offer for sale by
> auction through Pool.com or elsewhere.
>
> I take the view, and I assume ICANN does too, that ICANN-accredited
> registrars are obliged to adhere to their Agreements with ICANN and
> the terms of the EDDP. Moreover, I take the view that when a domain
> name expires, it becomes available again to the general public *at
> Registry level* and cannot be retained by a registrar except under
> "extenuating circumstances".
>
> I am mailing Tim Cole separately, in his capacity as ICANN-Registrar
> Liaison, but I hope he may see fit to respond on this mailing list as
> well.
>
> At stake is the integrity of the EDDP, which is NOW in effect. Also at
> stake is the right of all other registrars to have "right of access"
> to expired domains when they are released and (rightly) become
> available for registration again via the appropriate Registry. In my
> opinion - and I shall put this to Bhavin Turakhia in his capacity as
> Chair of the Registrars constituency - the contravention of the EDDP
> and RAA in this way damages the rights and business of all other
> registrars.
>
> Either we have an ordered system to which all parties comply, or we
> have chaos and "anything goes". Is EDDP already dead, just 2 days
> after it began?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Richard Henderson
>

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