[ga] Add Grace Period and PIR's proposal

["Michael D. Palage" <Michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All:

I just wanted to comment on the discussion regarding the Add Grace
Period and PIR's pending Registry Service request. As usual let me begin
with the usual disclosures. I am consultant for various registration
authorities, including Afilias that provides backend registry services
for PIR, however, I was not involved in the drafting of the PIR Registry
Service request. I am also a member of INTA, and was in attendance at
the leadership meeting several weeks ago at which the topic of taste
testing was discussed.

I personally have significant concerns in connection with the practice
of taste testing/domain name kiting, particularly with regard to the
impact on trademark and brand holders. Notwithstanding these concerns, I
personally do not advocate an absolute ban on the Add Grace Period
because this would have an adverse impact on legitimate registrar
operations. I know many registrars that utilize the Add Grace Period for
legitimate operations (credit card charge backs, accidental/unintended
transactions, etc).  Instead I believe restrictions based upon a certain
level of activity is a much more prudent approach because it would stop
the wholesale abuse of add grace period, but still allow its use for its
intended purposes. The basis of this proposal was first explained to me
by Tim Ruiz at GoDaddy, and I would encourage Tim to continue to
circulate the GoDaddy proposal.

Additionally, while I fully agree with the harm to trademark and brand
holders that INTA documents in its letter to ICANN
(http://www.icann.org/correspondence/reidl-to-icann-16nov06.pdf) I must
respectfully disagree with its position that opposes the adoption of the
PIR Registry Service request, as well as others on this list that have
opposed its adoption.

My basis for this position is that domain name taste testing has existed
for well over a year, and during this time the GNSO, the body under the
ICANN bylaws tasked with gTLD policy development has done nothing on
this topic. In response to this silence/inaction, PIR decided to step
forward and utilize the mechanisms in its contract to attempt to solve a
problem. Unfortunately, instead of being applauded as a leader, they
have been chastised as legitimating a practice they themselves are
seeking to eradicate. 

While I appreciate that the community may desire a uniform solution to
this problem, PIR's action does not prevent that from happening. Under
the proposed registry contract also under consideration tomorrow,
Article III states in relevant part the following:

In the event of a conflict between Registry Services (as defined in
Section 3.1(d)(iii) below), on the one hand, and Consensus Policies
developed in accordance with this Section 3.1(b) or any Temporary
Specifications or Policies established pursuant to Section 3.1(a)(i)
above, on the other hand, the Consensus Polices or Temporary
Specifications or Policies shall control.

Thus if the community should ever adopt a consensus policy on taste
testing/domain name kiting, it would trump any existing PIR registry
service.

Therefore, I believe that the ICANN Board should approve the PIR
Registry Service request because it does not raise any stability or
security issues, and at worse would only provide the community with some
additional data points should it undertake a consensus policy
development process. I also hope that given the broad community
opposition to this practice by major registrars, registries, and
business users, that these groups will come together to find a mutually
agreeable consensus solution to this problem. However, until these
groups come together and produce such a document, PIR or other
registries with potential solutions should not be held hostage at the
eleventh hour of the approval process. 

Just my two cents for what they are worth.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage