Re: [ga] Provider/User Balance
- To: "General Assembly of the DNSO" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Provider/User Balance
- From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:17:47 -0000
- Cc: "vinton g. cerf" <vinton.g.cerf@xxxxxxx>, "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I note that Bhavin Turakhia and other registrars on the Registrars' mailing list are discussing this issue of compliance and enforcement:
"ICANN is currently reviewing the RAA and intends to make changes and come up
with a new RAA by June. This is very important to all of us from the
following perspectives -
* to merge some of the consensus policies into the RAA
* to come up with alternative options to enforce compliance for registrars
who are not currently in compliance with their RAA (such as for instance a
contractual provision that would allow ICANN to temporarily suspend ADDs of
a Registrar if they are not in compliance)
* there have been a few circumstances highlighted in the ICANN contracts
which conflict with local law in other countries such as Germany. There
maybe possible changes that could be made to the RAA to circumvent those."
Richard Henderson's continuing comments:
I put it to you Vint, and the ICANN Board, that many registrars may themselves appreciate a better means of reining in registrars who flout the spirit or the letter of their accreditation, or who bring the hard-working community of decent registrars into disrepute.
An example of the ICANN-accreditation principles being exploited in a manner that potentially disrupts both registrar business and ICANN policies might include: the 100 or so "shell" registrars which applied for and were granted accreditation by ICANN in order to provide POOL.com with a large number of points of access to deleting domains. The concept of single businesses swamping the registrar pool with their own subsidiaries in this way, simply to 'game' one corner of the DNS market, does not bode well. There could be further repercussions in any future round-robin processes for, say, .eu or .travel when the more established registrars with more actual registrations and broader range of resources find themselves with single "lists" in the distribution of newly-released domains, while the new "empire" of shell registrars controlled by single entities may be able to submit a hundred "lists" and gain advantage over the registrars who have been carrying out a broader range of registrar functions for a wider number of registrants. This exploitation of the ICANN-accreditation process could be seen as a breach of spirit (at least).
An example of an ICANN-accredited registrar exploiting its registrar privilege to gain or warehouse domains might be recalled in the case of Signature domains, who submitted a private "list" for the .biz2B release, excluding members of the public: they set out to acquire some of the most popular domains by submitting a very short list of domain applications (to effectively queue-jump larger and more open registrars) all in the name of one person, one of their own partners, Mr Joshua Blacker. Of course, they were able to do this with impunity because there was no Code of Conduct which explicitly forbade "warehousing" of domains by a registrar, and no powers of "enforcement" written into the ICANN Agreements. However, examples like this (or the 200+ names acquired by Yesnic in the .info Sunrise using false trademark details which were later challenged through WIPO) highlight the need for a Code of Conduct, clear limits to registrar practice defined in ICANN Agreements, and the power assumed by ICANN to enforce compliance through a range of punitive measures.
These could reasonably include a step-by-step system of warnings until registrars faced the choice of compliance or loss of their access to the very resources they seek to profit from.
ICANN itself has had to bear the flak for some of the worst registrar excesses in recent years, and I would argue that it is in the interests of both ICANN, its bona fide registrars, and registrants, to lay down a system of enforcement that has "teeth". At the same time ICANN is in desperate need of establishing clear rules right now on "warehousing" of domains, and also rules for the deletion process for expired domains, since various registrars (and possibly registries) are in the process of dismantling the intentions of the present ICANN policy and process regarding deleting domain names.
----- Original Message -----
From: Danny Younger
To: Vinton G. Cerf
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 10:19 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Provider/User Balance
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic. If we are all in accord that a policy is needed that would allow for enforcement of registry and registrar agreements though options other than sole recourse to de-certification, might we ask you to recommend to your fellow Board members to exercise their rights under the bylaws to initiate a PDP on this topic by instructing the GNSO Council to begin the process outlined in Annex A? A Board initiative on this matter might inspire the GNSO to rigorously follow the PDP process for once.
"Vinton G. Cerf" <vinton.g.cerf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for taking time to share these thoughts along with Danny's. I think more can be done to improve the Internet experience for registrants in the domain name system so I am open to suggestions as I believe is the rest of the board. Some matters may turn out to be better handled in national settings (fraud, abuse, etc) but it seems to me that better tools for enforcement of registrar and registry agreements would serve everyone. At present, these agreements have few options for dealing with problems short of extreme actions such as de-certification. If the community of registrants, registries and registrars can come to consensus on better and more refined mechanisms for encouraging fair practices, I think we'd all be pleased.
Vinton Cerf, SVP Technology Strategy, MCI
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
+1 703 886 1690, +1 703 886 0047 fax