[ga] The ICANN Board and .Pro

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At the ICANN Public Forum yesterday, concerns were raised about the .Pro affair by three contributors (two At Large constituents and one registrar). Concerns were raised about mass registrations on behalf of uncertified customers, using a "proxy" device to bypass the Registry's main purpose and intention of creating a TLD exclusively for the use of verified professionals. ICANN was asked to enforce amendments to the Agreement to 'clarify' acceptable practiceby the Registry and by Registrars. The Board was asked to consider the implications for the integrity of future restricted TLDs. The Registrar who intervened at the Public Forum requested urgent attention over what he described as a Registry "thumbing its nose at ICANN". He had spoken to a lot of people who were dismayed by what had happened. "If this kind of conduct was allowed to go unchallenged," he said, "then it made him and people like him want to give up on ICANN's processes." Vint Cerf, the Chairman, agreed that this matter must be addressed by ICANN staff and the Board.

At the ICANN Board Meeting today, Michael Palage once again raised the matter of the .Pro Registry, and said that it was important for the community that they understood that the ICANN Board takes this matter, and matters of registrar and registry compliance, very seriously indeed. He reported that ICANN staff are in the process of gathering further information on the .Pro issue and that it would be wrong for the ICANN Board to pre-empt those enquiries. However the issue would be pursued and decisions taken in response to ICANN's enquiries. Michael Palage also referred, in this context, to the new Registry Compliance procedures that were posted on the ICANN website on 2nd April.

Tina Dam wrote a public letter to RegistryPro 15 days ago, complaining about measures which have "violated the spirit of name restrictions in .Pro" She added that ICANN would like to discuss the possibility of a contract amendment. To date, no reply has been received (or, at least, published).

For readers new to this issue, there is an explanation of the way the restrictive outcomes intended by the Registry Agreement have been circumvented by RegistryPro and one of its Registrars. Here:
http://www.circleid.com/article/1023_0_1_0_C/

For examples (just a snapshot and fraction) of domains obtained for customers without any checks being done on these customers (it's just click and pay, then you've obtained a restricted domain) see Here:
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg02433.html

For proposals of amendments that might be made to the Registry Agreement, see Here:
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg02473.html

Other sites which have reported on the .Pro situation include:
http://www.jottings.com/2005/03/30/in-support-of-bret-fausett/
http://blog.lextext.com/blog/_archives/2005/3 (view entry for March 27th)

And this News Article released by Associated Press yesterday:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7420882/

It concludes: "EnCirca president Tom Barrett said his company plans to keep offering the service unless restrictions are set."

Obviously, Tina Dam and her team at ICANN will be urged to consider further restrictions, amendments and compliance to defend the integrity both of this "restricted" TLD, and others like .Travel which are due to launch soon.

Yrs,

Richard Henderson