RE: [registrars] Interesting Opinion From ICANN

["John Berryhill" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Going clear back to the IAHC in February of 1997, 
>it was understood that registrars should *not* warehouse 
>domains 

While there are various definitions of 'warehousing', the current ICANN RAA
leaves the question open, since it requires a registrar to abide by any
ICANN consensus policy on the subject.  There is no ICANN consensus policy
on the subject.

"3.7.9 Registrar shall abide by any ICANN adopted specifications or policies
prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by
registrars."

Mis-reading this provision as some sort of prohibition against 'warehousing'
is a perennial topic.


>I see no problem with NSI having "networksolutions.com", do 
>you?  

Do I?  My opinion doesn't matter.

Does ICANN Registrar Compliance?  Yes.  The RAA requires every domain name
to be the subject of a valid domain registration contract with the
registrar.  

As Tim Cole has brilliantly pointed out, and I have quoted him verbatim in
the previous posting, "it appears" that a registrar cannot validly register
*any* domain names to itself.  Now, granted, he said "it would appear" not
once but twice, so he is addressing the appearance of an appearance.  But
assuming Tim's words to mean *something* leads to an inescapable and legally
correct conclusion:

The domain name Register.com is registered via Register.com, and must
therefore be the subject of a valid domain registration contract.  Because
Register.com is also registered TO "Register.com Inc., Domain Registrar"
(which is what the whois says), it is legally impossible for Register.com to
be subject of a valid domain registration contract, because a party cannot
contract with itself.

I guess the only way to settle this is for Jeff Eckhaus or some other
willing volunteer, to submit a whois data compliance report for Register.com
and then to produce a registration contract by which Register.com has
entered into an agreement with Register.com to register the domain name
"Register.com".  

Tim Cole nailed it.  Register.com cannot be a validly registered domain
name.

>Does the "panel"?

The more interesting question there is whether a UDRP panel is empowered to
authoritatively determine compliance with the RAA.  Apparently, we are going
to see some interesting mission creep in action.  Stay tuned.