<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] ...a palpable hit
Sotiris,
Just quick answers below.
Not to mention the fact that oftentimes such 'tasting' amounts to
'squatting', which makes the entire practice quite hypocritical and calls
into question the entire UDRP. On one hand, registries/registrars are
bound to enforce intellectual property rights in domain names by locking
up so-called 'disputed' domains, while on the other, they are actively
seeking to hoard traffic generating domain names that have expired under
their interagency... it's actually quite despicable, wouldn't you agree?
(I have no idea on what "despicable" means - I just assume you mean it
stinks)
Indeed. However, with my ALAC hat on, I wanted to analyse the situation
simply on the effect it has on the registrants and general public.
> And yes, I agree with Karl, the actual raw cost for the registry is
> substantially lower than the cost charged to registrars.
What, if anything, do you recommend ought to be done about it?
Quite simply, I don't know. That's, in essence, why I haven't done anything
except arguing against raising (or lifting) the price cap.
:<(
But shouldn't this be seen mainly as a registry-registrar matter? I mean,
shouldn't the registrars be the active part of the community looking at a
different arrangement, maybe asking for registrants support on the proposal?
Roberto, I am curious, how many members of the "public" were present at
the debate in Marrakesh (and I don't mean the ICANN 'insiders' and
lobbyists... I mean actual members of the public at large)?
Don't know exactly, I can tell you that most of ALAC was there, but from the
podium I could not tell the difference between an internet user and an IP
lawyer ;>)
However, the session was transcribed. It was also planned to webcast it, but
I think it was one of those that was cancelled due to the well-known
technical problems.
As far as I can recall, the primary reasoning for the grace period was to
allow registrants a 'second chance' if they happened to allow their
name(s) to expire for some reason or another. From there we went on to
Redemption periods and as much as $80 charges to 'redeem' one's own domain
if you happened to allow it to expire... In short, it seemd the old adage
'give an inch and they'll take a yard' is an understatement when it comes
to the registrar community's abuse of the grace/redemption periods.
Domain 'tasting' proves that there really is little/no cost to the
registrar for 'redeeming' a registrant's expired domain, so how do they
justify for example an $80 'redemption' fee? Do you not agree that this
is a flagrant abuse of registrants?
Yes.
However, this exploits a window of opportunity that is open only because the
registrant has forgotten to renew the name.
My registrar is very good at reminding me to renew. Again, from a "consumer
protection" point of view, there are many differnt things that could be
done.
Sigh. Roberto, you know very well that we (i.e. the original At Large
Membership and the public in general) have never really been listened to
by the Board... I have been a member of the ICANN community since its
inception, my name is on the list of registered attendees for the first
ICANN meeting in Boston in '98:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/cambridge-1198/attendees.html I
chaired the WG-Review after Greg Burton's rascally submission and
subsequent disappearing act. I was at ICANN Montreal in 2003 (where I had
the pleasure of making your acquaintance). In all that time, I cannot
remember an instance when WE, the true At Large, have ever been listend
to.
But we have not given up.
Cheers,
Roberto
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|