Re: [ga] Add Grace Period and PIR's proposal

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael and all,

  I'll need change on your 2 cents as well all of our members that
have .org registrations/domain names.  Why, you may be thinking?
Well very simply put is that the GNSO nor PIR can effectively
determine any consensus on any proposal as neither the GNSO
or PIR represent any registrants/domain name holders and therefore
no consensus has or can be realistically known or determined.

  Secondly, as far as we know, there has been no soliciting from
either the GNSO or PIR to any of our members whom are .org
registrants asking them if they agree with the GNSO or PIR's
suggested or suggestions with regards to add grace period,
ergo no vote has been taken of the registrants/domain name
holders by PIR or for that matter any other registry.  Hence
consensus cannot exist in accordance with a bottom up
process in respect to ICANN bylaws.

  So please be so kind to remit your check for the change
on the 2 cents forthwith or otherwise without delay to:
P.O. box 1843 Frisco TX., 75034 and payable to
Jeffrey A. Williams.

Michael D. Palage wrote:

> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827