[ga] A Policy Discussion

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

It has gotten to the point that I can no longer trust
the GNSO to responsibly manage DNS policy matters.

Let's consider the general state of long-standing
ICANN Consensus Policies:

1.  The UDRP -- still in need of a major overhaul
 
2.  The WHOIS Data Reminder Policy -- no empirical
evidence that this policy is achieving the goal of
improving contact detail accuracy

3.  The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy -- unlike the
auDA policy that states:  "The losing registrar must
not impose a transfer fee on the registrant, or any
fee that could reasonably be construed as a transfer
fee", ICANN registrars have imposed significant
transfer-away fees that defeat the aim of facile
domain name portability.

4.  The Whois Marketing Restriction Policy -- No
evidence that compliance with registrars' access
agreements has ever been monitored

5.  The Restored Names Accuracy Policy -- on how many
occasions has the submission of false contact data
actually resulted in names being placed in registrar
hold status?

6.  The Expired Domain Deletion Policy -- circumvented
by almost every registrar via their Terms of Service
language

Of course, there are other policies in addition to the
above that require work:

1.  The Add Grace policy that promotes typosquatting
at epidemic levels

2.  The Redemption Grace Period policy that still
denies registrants a competitive choice in the
selection of a redeeming registrar and locks the
unfortunate into fees that are extortionate in the
extreme

3.  WHOIS policy (guided by a Task Force that chooses
to ignore all public comments tendered instead of
incorporating such comments to cure deficiencies in
the WHOIS policy proposals that the TF has put forth).

While there are many other policy areas that could be
added to this list, it should be clear to most that
established policies should never be treated as static
elements.  There is a need to revisit policy choices
to determine whether they are efficacious and to see
whether improvements should be made.  

Yet when I consider the activities of the GNSO I am
reminded of Nero who fiddled while Rome burned; I am
not seeing a dedication to the GNSO's fundamental
mission.

At the end of the day it is the registrant community
that is directly affected by ICANN policy outcomes. 
Common sense would dictate that registrants as
impacted parties would have a place at the GNSO Table
as a recognized constituency.  Sadly, common sense has
never ruled the day within ICANN and poor policy will
doubtless remain the norm.



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go 
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail