Re: [ga] "Second-Tier" registrants should not be permitted in restricted TLDs

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

  ICANN is in no position to demand anything.  ICANN cannot enforce
any registry agreement as it has no means or expertise necessary by
which
to enforce it's own registry or registrar agreements/contracts, and
further
neither registry or registrar agreement had any "Teeth" in them by which

violation of same is reasonably punishable.  Only DOC/NTIA which
approves all of these contracts and therefore are the enforcement
entity.

Richard Henderson wrote:

>    I want to propose that "leasing" of domains should not be permitted
> in restricted (sTLDs) where processes of authentication are required.
>
> Quite simply, there should not be a second (unauthenticated) tier of
> pseudo-registrants who obtain restricted domains by this "leasing"
> device.
>
> Otherwise, every sTLD may simply become a gTLD by the backdoor. The
> same thing that is being attempted at .Pro will be repeated at .Travel
> and once the principle of "leasing" has been allowed then it will be a
> precedent for all future sTLDs.
>
> To put it plainly: ICANN should stipulate that their Registry
> Agreements for restricted TLDs are designed to limit registrations to
> authenticated entities, and they should say quite simply that there
> may only be a single tier of registration. If a registrant wishes to
> obtain a restricted domain, they must apply as registrant themselves,
> and they must be authenticated.
>
> At the point when they cease to operate within this restricted
> context, the domain should not be re-sold or passed on, but should be
> returned to the Registry.
>
> In short, restricted domains should be used for the purposes and
> contexts for which they were designed.
>
> Nowhere in the ICANN .Pro Registry Agreement does it authorise the
> "leasing" of domains to what are, in effect, second-tier registrants
> (in the sense that they are described by EnCirca as the "owners" of
> the domains and they are the paying customers who are buying the
> domains).
>
> ICANN should - NOW - demand that all domains obtained by this
> "leasing" device (invented to circumvent ICANN's own intentions) are
> de-activated until such time as individual registrants can get their
> applications and status verified. The liability for any losses
> incurred (in my view) lies with EnCirca in that their actions went
> against the expressed intentions of the Registry to restrict use, and
> in that they failed to consult with all parties (and specifically
> ICANN) over their actions which would dramatically impact on ICANN's
> Agreement and the commitments made to other parties (such as
> professionals who bought into the .Pro scheme on the original basis as
> it was set out). EnCirca should have consulted with ICANN first (in my
> view), and RegistryPro should also have consulted with ICANN within
> days, before activating the flood of thousands of domains which were
> clearly being purchased for third parties to circumvent Registry
> restrictions.
>
> Meanwhile, ICANN should expressly prohibiting "leasing" of future
> restricted domains like .Travel... the registrant should be the real
> customer and should be verified; and the .Travel agreement should be
> amended to make this more expressly clear.
>
> RegistryPro has allowed ICANN's purposes and intentions (as expressed
> in their Agreement with the Registry) to be circumvented so that,
> although a smiling registrar claims to stand guard over the process at
> the front door of the house (and is authenticated), he is actually
> asking thousands of unauthorised gatecrashers into the house through
> the back door.
>
> Nowhere in the .Pro Agreement does it propose this process of
> "leasing" to subvert the intentions and processes of the Agreement.
> Therefore I regard the action of EnCirca and (tacitly) of RegistryPro
> to be in breach of the contract, in that it is a clear 'device' to
> subvert the principles of the Registry.
>
> ICANN should act, and act now.
> They should also act for the future, in that the precedents they allow
> now will also subvert other sTLDs in the future.
>
> Yrs,
>
> 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