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

[Mike Lampson <lampson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I know for a fact that VeriSign used to monitor and enforce the prohibition
against this activity and would send cease and desist letters by certified
mail if the Registrar did not voluntarily stop.  It is interesting that
VeriSign has unilaterally and in an unannounced policy change started
permitting this activity.   More than the existance of this practice, I
dislike that such a change in policy wasn't announced to the Registrar
community at large.  There is a marketing edge for the Registrars would
could take advantage of this by placing "try it free for 5 days" offers on
their web site.

I also wonder about other Internet management issues that occur because of
this practice.  Someone already mentioned that Whois doesn't need to be
current during the tryout period.  Using temporary host names makes it
easier for Phishers to set up look-alike sites and then suddenly have them
disappear, including any references to their IP addresses.  These "ghost"
sites could certainly become a problem.

_Mike



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of John Berryhill
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 3:34 PM
To: Ross Rader; Marcus Faure; Jay Westerdal
Cc: 'Tim Ruiz'; Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] Variations on the current domain name model -
proposed registrar workshop for Luxembourg



All,

I agree with Ross in failing to see how this is a registrar issue.  Chuck
Gomes was unequivocal in Argentina that Verisign registry is not
experiencing any technical or other issue with the practice.  For a
registrar to be concerned that someone else is "abusing" the registry, when
(a) the practice does not affect that registrar and (b) the registry doesn't
mind at the current volume, just seems a bit odd.

>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.

Hence, the registry ultimately collects the $6 on the "small fraction" of
hundreds of thousands of domain names that otherwise would not be
registered.  This is otherwise known as a "net plus" for the registry.

>Verisign has said over and over again that they are powerless
>to stop it

No, as Bhavin points out, they said they aren't bothered by it.  I realize
that transcribing my written notes from the session has been taking last
place on the to-do list, but I recently (i.e. at one of the two meetings
last week) confirmed that this was not a personal hallucination.

>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.

This is not the IP Constituency either.  Aside from Verisign profiting from
domains that would not be registered but for traffic testing, another
observed phenomenon is similar to that of the flock of seagulls which follow
the fishing trawlers to dine on the fish thrown overboard after each haul.
If the brief registration of a domain name has set off a trademark alarm
somewhere, then the person on the receiving end of that alarm is now
motivated to register a domain THEY hadn't been motivated to register
before.  And those registrations, of course, are being obtained by the IP
claimant through registrars OTHER than the ones which are traffic testing.
Again, this is known as a "net plus" for those registrars providing
trademark monitoring services.

I agree that if a registrar is churning the same names repetitively, that is
a problem for the registry, and is dirty pool of some variety.  However, the
communications that I have seen between the registry and the concerned
registrars which have been providing traffic testing to registrants, have
been to the effect of "What are you doing?" and "Let's keep the lines of
communication open, so that there are no misunderstandings in the future
*if* a problem arises."  Ultimately, the contract in question is between a
registrar and the registry, and is not a compact among registrars.

While I certainly feel the pain apparent in the emptiness of anyone's docket
that permits them the schedule to prepare and file a UDRP within four days
of a domain registration, I would humbly suggest that if the "pain" is being
felt by those running mark monitoring services sounding false alarms that
they simply set the alarm threshold back by five days.

Finally, the perceived "problem" itself has a variety of causes and
solutions.  The data being gathered is in fact already available in the form
of the .com zone log of NXDOMAIN responses.  That data can of course be made
available on a basis that does not place a load on the servers.  Verisign
has not to at least my knowledge ever renounced an intention to re-launch
Sitefinder, and the Middle District of Florida denied Verisign's motion to
dismiss Netster's action premised on the Sherman Act and unfair competition
principles prior to the settlement of that action.  To permit Sitefinder to
compete with others who do not have the luxury of receiving the traffic
without having to pay for domain registrations, without alternative access
to the same data, essentially permits a limited monopoly to unfairly compete
in a market outside of the scope of the rationale for the limited monopoly.
However, I have zero doubt that the "problem" if any is best resolved
between Verisign and its contracting parties.

John