Re: [ga] go daddy

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chris,

Last year at this time the issue that you have raised
was under debate.  Eventually (13 January 2005), the
GNSO decided to invoke a request for an Issues Report
which would be followed by the prospect of a formal
Policy Development Procedure (see
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg00758.html
):

"Philip Sheppard, seconded by Maureen Cubberley
proposed the amended draft resolution:

Whereas the high demand amongst registrars to register
specific domain names that become available for
re-registration at the registry has lead to unforeseen
impact and strains on the registration infrastructure
of gTLD registries and registrars.
Whereas this affects the service level that registrars
can provide to their customers and the meaning of
ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars, Council
resolves, to request the ICANN staff manager to write
an issues report (as specified in annex A to the ICANN
by-laws) on the "Problems caused by contention for
domain names made available by a gTLD registry
", so that Council can subsequently decide if a policy
development process would be appropriate.

Bruce Tonkin called for a nominated vote.
19 votes in favour, 5 proxy votes in favour, 3 no
votes. (Kiyoshi Tsuru and Alick Wilson with the proxy
for Demi Getschko had dropped off the call and did not
vote)

The motion carried."

As is typical with ICANN, procedures required by the
bylaws were never followed by ICANN Staff.  

The bylaws state:  Within fifteen (15) calendar days
after receiving either (i) an instruction from the
Board; (ii) a properly supported motion from a Council
member; or (iii) a properly supported motion from an
Advisory Committee, the Staff Manager will create a
report (an "Issue Report").

It is now ten months later and the Issue Report has
still not been created by ICANN Staff -- ICANN Staff
member Maria Farrell describes the "next action" on
this project as "To be prioritized.." (see
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01479.html
).

The issue that you have raised should be looked at
together with the language currently in ICANN's
Expired Domain Deletion Policy
(http://www.icann.org/registrars/eddp.htm).


--- kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I have a question. I understand a Registrar has to
> have price raises in their agreement with ICANN. Is
> selling the names after they expire but before they
> drop back into the pool at a higher price just a way
> to get around the price restrictions?
> 
> If a registrar lets the name drop back into the
> pool, it can be registered by anyone at any
> registrar. If the registrar doesn't drop it back
> into the pool and instead sells it at a higher
> price, then it's not a fair system in my opinion.
> 
> The only reason for not dropping expired names back
> into the pool is to give the registrant a grace
> period to renew their registration. By putting it up
> for auction during the grace period they are selling
> a name that the registrant still has the option to
> renew?
> 
> I'd like to hear what others think about that.
> 
> Chris McElroy
> KidsearchNetwork.org 
> MissingChildrenBlog.com 
> 



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com