ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [registrars] Variations on the current domain name model - proposed registrar workshop for Luxembourg

  • To: <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] Variations on the current domain name model - proposed registrar workshop for Luxembourg
  • From: "Jay Westerdal" <jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 10:30:28 -0700
  • In-reply-to: <9E93DEC285888046B8949287D8B8376401E201E9@VAMAIL3.CORPIT.NSI.NET>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcVl7y9rotnWKGiJRcyzC9m2I7kdwwAA/jugAAMOw3A=

Let me brief you on the abuse that is taking place.

>> I still don't really see what 
>> our issue is or why we would possibly care about what 
>> arguments VGRS may or may not have...

For one, abuse of IP rights. Several of the domains being
registered for 4 days are typo names. Very famous marks that
do receive traffic. Try and to a UDRP on a domain that lasts
4 days and has no whois record. Two, a registrar is not
required to publish the whois record for five days. Hence,
they could continually hide an abuser who is doing the
registrations for 4 days and leave no way to stop that abuse
on their mark. Three, 400K domains today. Yes in the future
months it will be millions of domains a day. A scale that would
eclipse Tucows in size just to monetize, delete, and start over.
All at no cost to them, the cost will be paid but it will not
be by them.

I have given it more thought and I believe each registrar
should receive 100 free deletes a month to allow for testing.
Then after that 1 free delete per 200 domains registered. 
Registries would charge $0.75 for any delete in the 5 day
grace period exceeding their quota.

Verisign has said over and over again that they are powerless
to stop it as they are contractually obligated to allow the
abuse. Only a consensus policy could force the abuse to halt.
This may not be the most pressing issue Registrars face but
it is one that causes pain to IP holders and they are our
registrars' customers. I believe we should act. Please discuss
the motion I have drafted, I would like to formally submit it
to the list on Friday after it gets more baked.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mitchell, Champ 
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 8:29 AM
To: Tim Ruiz; Ross Rader
Subject: RE: [registrars] Variations on the current domain name model -
proposed registrar workshop for Luxembourg

With due respect to Ross, I do not see our bylaws or website as "burning
priority issues". I can agree that whois and transfers are probably more
important to us than this. However, don't you think that the diminution
in threads per registrar and the whole game of creating registrars for
no reason other than to get more threads, often jut to lease them, is a
direct result of the grace period? I do. If they couldn't use the grace
period in an unintended and inappropriate manner to avoid cost and risk,
they would not do hundreds of thousands of registrations with the
intention to keep only the small fraction that appear profitable. Even
more abusive is the register, delete, reregister scam --- and scam is
what it is. Inevitably this impacts all legitimate registrars.

Ross, I would never claim to be as knowledgeable as you about the
intricacies of the domain registration system, but over 30 years of
experience has taught me that when one of my suppliers is slammed, I
always end up paying part of the cost. 

I completely agree with you that the registries, particularly VeriSign,
have the power to have addressed this long ago and have failed to act.
Frankly, I don't understand why, although I have heard its rationale.
Clearly you are right that they should take the lead. However, this does
not change the fact that ultimately the legitimate registrars suffer
from this conduct and, if as it appears on its face, this is an abuse
that can be easily corrected, it would seem that we should support a
correction.  Best, Champ

W. G. Champion Mitchell
Chairman & CEO
Network Solutions Inc.
(703) 668-5200

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:05 AM
To: Ross Rader
Cc: jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
registrars@xxxxxxxx; faure@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] Variations on the current domain name model -
proposed registrar workshop for Luxembourg

I agree that registries should be concerned about this practice. They
may see some short term benefit to this activity but it will be short

Already there is at least one user doing repetative adds and deletes for
the same names to apparently benefit from the traffic without ever
really paying for the names.

In some cases these names infringe on the IP rights of others but not
long enough to always be seen.

It may only be a few players today but I don't think we should be short
sighted about this. Unchecked it WILL become many millions of names per


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>