[ga] Re: Pooling .eu registrations for auction

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alas, I foresee problems here. What if an executive of Pool.com applies for the domain names and puts himself down as the registrant, he can then "lease" the name out to the highest bidder (as has been done by EnCirca with .pro domains) and of course there's no law against changing the nameservers to those of the Pool customer who actually wants the domains. Or alternatively the executive applies as registrant for the domains and simply alters the address and contact details to give a Pool customer control of the domain that way. Either way, once Pool have acquired all their domains through their multiple registrars, who can reasonably stop them passing control to other customers a week or two later. Equally, if they technically "lease" the names to their customers (but allow them full contact and nameserver rights) then they won't actually be re-selling the domains, will they? So I foresee Pool, Snapnames, Enom getting round the EURid rules that way.

Secondly, it sounds as if the registrars will be allowed one domain at a time then back to the back of the queue - once again, this will favour the Registrars who only apply for a very small number of Premium Domains. They will have all their very good domains coming up in the first 10 rounds, whereas the ordinary registrar with 2000 customers will have the Premium names spread out anywhere between Round 1 and Round 2000, but by the time their Premium name applications come round, they will already have been snapped up by short-queue registrars in the early rounds. That is *exactly* the concern I raised to the ICANN meeting in Cape Town. The use by Pool or Enom of maybe 60 -80 'shell' registrars means they can afford to direct all their best names to very short queues spread across their scores of accredited registrars, giving them an obvious advantage over long-established Registrars acting in good faith as a single entity.

Finally, on the issue of re-selling, EURid states in their latest mail to me: "We don't allow reselling". Does this refer to reseller registrars such as all those working through Tucows? Or does it mean that EURid does not allow registrants to re-sell their domains? If Registrants can't resell their domains I simply can't see how EURid will be able to police the clear and established practice of selling and re-selling domains all over the Internet, through Sedo and all the other sites that do this, or at the very least, how they will prevent the "leasing out" of domains, with simple alteration of contact details and nameservers, which anyone is allowed to do. If Registrants *can* resell their domains, then of course, the Pool or Enom executive who nominally obtains the .eu domains in the first place, will then at a later date (1 week later? 1 month later?) sell or auction off the domains to their chosen customers.

I invite EURid and ICANN to consult on this matter, in liaison with the Registrar Constituency.

Thank You,

Richard Henderson

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "EURid" <info@xxxxxxxx>
To: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Pooling .eu registrations for auction


> Dear Sir,
> 
> we would like to further clarify your questions:
> 
> 
> > First of all, thank you very much for the courtesy of your detailed reply.
> > If I am correct in my understanding of what you have told me:
> > 1. Pool.com are not yet accredited and if this remains the case they are not
> > allowed to offer any services.
> 
> Correct.
> 
> 
> > 2. The individual registrar has to submit a domain application, and it has
> > to be on a first-come first-serve basis. If the registrar (who must be
> > accredited) is successful in acquiring the domain name, he/she may not
> > re-sell the domain name (for example, to another registrar).
> 
> No, you misunderstood something here in so far as it is not the registrar who is acquiring the domain name; it is in fact the end customer/registrant.
> 
> Regarding your questions, we want to stress once again that, as laid out in Article 4 and 5 of the EC regulation 874/2004, only accredited registrars may offer registration services for .eu names.
> 
> The accredited register must forward to EURid only those applications he received after accreditation, and he must do so on a first-come-first-served basis. Auctioning with the domain name is definitely not allowed. Not complying with the regulation and as well as the agreement is a breach of contract.
> 
> On a similar note, we don't allow reselling. 
> 
> The end consumer should at at any time know who is responsible for what and who would be the accredited registrar. This should be made clear at all times and should be explicitely mentioned in the agreement with the end consumer.
> 
> It is up to the registrar to decide which modell he would use as long as this modell is in compliance with the EC regulation as well as the agreement. 
> 
> EURid will continue to monitor and will also post warnings if it should be necessary. 
> 
> As for your remarks concerning shell registrars and blank rounds, we would like to point out that we follow the policy "one company - one agreement". We will not introduce "blank rounds" as we want to keep it as fair as possible, using the first-come-first-served system, which means that the fastest registrar can only register one domain name before he will automatically be thrown out by the system. Then he would have to get back into the queue as anybody else.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Your EURid team 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed Jul 20 20:40:30 2005 Richard Henderson wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Dear EURid team,
> > 
> > First of all, thank you very much for the courtesy of your detailed reply.
> > If I am correct in my understanding of what you have told me:
> > 1. Pool.com are not yet accredited and if this remains the case they are not
> > allowed to offer any services.
> > 2. The individual registrar has to submit a domain application, and it has
> > to be on a first-come first-serve basis. If the registrar (who must be
> > accredited) is successful in acquiring the domain name, he/she may not
> > re-sell the domain name (for example, to another registrar).
> > 
> > I feel that some further clarification may be needed, however.
> > 
> > Question 1: Pool.com simply attracts interest in .eu names and passes the
> > names of interested applicants to one of its EU-accredited registrars. In
> > this sense, Pool.com would not exactly be offering the service themselves.
> > They would be saying, "You can contact us, and we will make sure that your
> > application is passed on to one of our registrars to legitimately carry out.
> > Would this be acceptable to EURid?
> > 
> > Question 2: I understand the model Pool.com offers is that many people may
> > contact POOL for the same .eu domain name. They will attempt to legitimately
> > acquire this domain name through various registrars who work for them. In
> > the event of this being a popular domain name which various people have
> > asked POOL to acquire for them, there will then be an auction with the name
> > going to the highest bidder. Will this process be acceptable to EURid?
> > 
> > Question 3: I understand that Pool.com may charge $60 for each name one of
> > their supporting registrars acquire for the people who contacted POOL
> > (unless an auction pushes the price higher). Would EURid consider that
> > Pool.com are entitled to act as 'agent' for these registrars, and charge the
> > winning applicant $60?
> > 
> > Question 4: When you say that (without accreditation) Pool.com "are not
> > allowed to offer any services", does this extend to acting as the point of
> > contact for .eu domain applicants, where these applications will then be
> > dispersed to legitimate and accredited registrars working to catch domains
> > for Pool?
> > 
> > Question 5: Would any similar restrictions apply equally to companies like
> > Snapnames or Enom, if they use multiple registrars to increase their chances
> > of 'catching' a domain name, and then auction the name to the highest
> > bidder?
> > 
> > Question 6: You say that no reselling of domain names will be allowed. Do
> > you mean just during the launch process? How will you stop this and enforce
> > this? Or do you mean no reselling ever? You will be aware that it is an
> > industry norm that domains may be freely traded, bought and sold, through
> > all the major TLDs? Surely you are not proposing to break this norm, and how
> > would you enforce such a rule, given that all the original registrant has to
> > do is change the nameservers and contact email, and another person would
> > have control of a domain name anyway?
> > 
> > These questions are in no sense meant to be critical. I am just respectfully
> > asking for clarification, so that the process is clear, so that rules can be
> > clearcut and upheld, and so that I (and other consumers) do not lose money
> > through EURid interventions or confiscated domains.
> > 
> > The last thing you want is for the launch to come crashing down (as the
> > .info launch did 3 years ago) and therefore it is very important that EURid
> > anticipate as many potential 'gaps' in their processes as possible, and
> > intervene in advance. Experience in recent years has shown that various
> > registrars will attempt all kinds of methods to circumvent the established
> > rules in order to gain an advantage in the process.
> > 
> > For example, will your release of domains favour a registrar who submits
> > just 10 names for a favoured customer, as opposed to another registrar who
> > submits 2000 names for its general clientele? In this case, would the
> > registrar with a small number of applications gain any advantage? (This
> > happened in the .info LR2 names release and also the .biz names release.
> > 
> > And then, if one registrar just operates in its own right as a single
> > registrar, and another company has created 100 'shell' registrars or even
> > 40, will that mean that the company who has exploited the technicality of
> > having multiple accredited registrar 'shells' will in effect *swamp* the
> > applications of the ordinary registrar who operates in good faith as a
> > single accredited entity?
> > 
> > My advice is that, at the very least, the distribution of names should be
> > built around a structure which includes "blank rounds" for any registrar
> > with a short list of applications. In other words, to make the distribution
> > fair, if an ordinary registrar submits say 1000 applications, and another
> > registrar submits just 10 applications, I propose that 990 'blank' rounds
> > should be added to the registrar applying for only 10, so that they don't
> > just grab 10 best names in the first 10 rounds of names being released. Or
> > are you going to simply let any registrar fight it out real-time, in which
> > case you will be inundated by people running scripts via all their 'shell'
> > registrars in order to grab the best domains.
> > 
> > Surely a controlled and orderly names release must ensure fair distribution
> > of domain names, and also attempt to prevent exploitation of the system by 3
> > or 4 companies with multiple accredited registrars, otherwise all the
> > registrars who simply apply as single registrars may find their provisions
> > for their customers have been compromised.
> > 
> > Just a few thoughts, but I'd be very grateful if you could consider answers
> > to my 6 Questions at the top of this mail. As usual, I will forward this
> > correspondence to various ICANN Directors, the ICANN Registry and Registrar
> > Liaison Managers, and representatives of the At Large internet users groups.
> > 
> > Thank You. I appreciate your response and willingness to engage in dialogue.
> > 
> > With kind regards,
> > Richard Henderson
> > www.atlarge.org