I thank Danny for bringing this policy problem to
the attention of ICANN constituents. At the heart of this problem are at least
two issues:
1. The obligation ICANN has (through its MoU) to
ensure the "fair distribution" of domain names, with the implication that access
to domains should be open to all.
2. The historic failure of ICANN to enforce its own
Agreements with Registries and Registrars - in this case with specific reference
to "warehousing" and now with the imminent crisis over expiring domain
names.
The problem with the expiring domain names is that
influential registrars are running ahead of the game, and ahead of ICANN's own
policy making, by effectively 'warehousing' all expiring domains with a view to
re-sale for a profit... something clearly NOT envisaged in their original
Agreements. For a long time I have urged the implementation of a mandatory code
of minimum standards for registrars - with the 'right of access to registries'
made dependent on adherence to these standards.
We saw a similar problem with certain registrars
warehousing domains at the time of the .info and .biz launches. This was brought
to the attention of ICANN, but ICANN refused to act (I presume, because the
references to 'warehousing' were perceived to be advisory and not mandatory).
But behind this 'de facto' policy creation be registrars is the "laissez faire"
attitude of ICANN, which has failed to foresee problems, or insist on adherence
to Agreements.
There is a further problem with the issue of
expiring domains. What these 'breakaway' registrars are proposing is in fact
scarcely worse than the present status quo. The truth is that acquisition of
desired new domains (following expiry) has been hijacked by a very small number
of businesses such as Pool, Buy Domains, Snapnames who basically hire (or
create) as many registrars as possible, and then run scripts (with registration
requests running to hundreds of thousands per domain name) which make it almost
impossible for members of the general public to acquire their desired
domains.
Why is the proposed new action of Netsol, Tucows
and Dotster any worse than this?
I proposed some time ago an open and accessible
system for the re-release of expiring domain names. I proposed:
1. All expiring domains should be publicly and
openly *listed* by the Registry. The general public should have ease of access
to the full list of expiring domains. (I know you can get details from websites
like 'DeletedDomains.com' but it should simply be an open list which everyone
can access direct from the Registry.
2. The existing registrant should have a period, as
at present, to redeem/recover the name (to account for last minute hitches,
absence on vacation, illness, human error).
3. There should then be an auction system or a
round-robin process by which the expiring domains are purchased and registered
*directly through the Registry* but with the Registrant selecting a Registrar to
finalise the transaction.
Underlying all this, as Danny has pointed out, is
the need for policy... and, more importantly, for the implementation of
policy.
Yrs,
Richard Henderson
atlarge.org
Copy of background to warehousing in mail sent by
Michael Palage a while back:
> Hello
All:
>
> I would like to provide a little historical background into
the
> "warehousing" issue. Unfortunately this has been an issue that has
been a
> focal point since the second registrar meeting in Chile (Summer
2000).
> During that meeting, this issue surfaced in connection with
credit card
> charge backs. Specifically what was a registrar to do if
after registering
a
> domain name the registrar was to lose payment in
connection with a credit
> card charge back. Several CORE members (if my
memory serves me correct
> Amadeau, Bob Connelly & Ken Stubbs were
very vocal on this topic) talked
> about the registrar deleting the name
and eating the then ($9) registry
fee
> as a cost of doing
business.
>
> Lauren Gaviser (RCOM's then Policy Person) objected
based upon the grounds
> that this requirement would prohibit registrars
from potentially reselling
> the name to another party in an attempt to
recoup their initial lose.
> Heading into the fall meeting in LA (Fall
2000), the Registrar focus
shifted
> toward bring NSI into the ICANN
family and having them become an ICANN
> accredited
registrar.
>
> In early 2001, the Registrar Constituency refocused
its effort on
> warehousing in connection with a Code of Conduct. In the
ICANN Registrar
> Accreditation Agreement there are two provisions that
are relevant for
this
> discussion.
>
> Section 3.7.1 which
states:
>
> In the event ICANN adopts a specification or policy,
supported by a
> consensus of ICANN-Accredited registrars, establishing or
approving a Code
> of Conduct for ICANN-Accredited registrars, Registrar
shall abide by that
> Code.
>
> and Section 3.7.9 which
states:
>
> Registrar shall abide by any ICANN adopted
specifications or policies
> prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or
speculation in domain names
by
> registrars.
>
> The Code
of Conduct Task Force was headed up by Richard Lindsay in the
> Spring and
Summer of 2000. After several telephone conferences and in
person
>
meetings, the biggest being in Yokohama, Japan a document was produced.
>
However, instead of calling it a Code of Conduct, I believe it was
called
a
> Best Practices Document. I was not an active participant in
this group so
do
> not hold me to the exact sequence of events. I
believe the last revision
of
> this document currently appears on the
Registrar website at
> http://www.icann-registrars.org/html%20docs/CodeofConduct3.htm.
>
> I seem to remember that there
was a debate over how this document would be
> adopted by ICANN so that it
would be enforced against all registrars. Much
> the like Transfer and WLS
debacles, there was discussion of whether this
> needed to go through the
DNSO Names Council to receive input from other
> constituencies or if this
could have just been adopted by the Board. Scary
> how history repeats
itself. During the Summer and Fall of 2000, the
majority
> of the
constituency was distracted with the new TLD proof of concept
>
process.
>
> Although there was talk of trying to get this
initiative back on track in
> the new year, ICANN and VeriSign sprung the
Restructuring contracts on us
in
> March of 2001. Heading into the
Summer and Fall of 2001, Transfer and WLS
> moved to the forefront and the
Code of Conduct has remained on the back
> burner.
>
> Now
that we are back in the present, I agree that warehousing needs to be
>
addressed as well as whois data mining, transfers and other issues that
>
directly impact day to day registrar operations. Historically I believe
it
> would not be prudent to attempt a comprehensive Code of Conduct. When
this
> was tried in the past different fractions , based upon different
registrar
> business models, formed to prevent meaningful progress. I
would
respectfully
> submit that the best way to go is to start
off with a Code of Conduct
> skeleton, and then add pieces to it in
an incremental manner. By tackling
> the problems one at a time, you will
be able to get consensus on each
items
> instead of the whole document.
Much like running a marathon you have to
run
> each mile one at a
time.
>
> Hopefully this provided some insight into the Registrar
Warehousing
problem.
> Although there is a mechanism for us to resolve
this problem, nothing will
> happen until action is taken.
>
>
Best regards,
>
> Mike
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 11:47
PM
Subject: [ga] Policy Needed
The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (section 4.2) indicates that new and revised
specifications and policies may be established on the topic of ?prohibitions on warehousing of
or speculation in domain names by registries or registrars?; I ask that the
Names Council initiate a Policy Development Process on this topic in view of
recent events first noted in the ICANN Advisory ?Registrar Expired Name Market
Developments? posted 21 September 2004.
At issue: If
registrants fail to renew their domain names at the conclusion of an
expiration grace period, certain registrars are planning to auction the rights
to these domain names, instead of allowing them to ?drop back into the pool?
of names available for re-registration on a first-come, first-served basis, as
is currently the process.
Discussion on this issue has already begun in the At-Large
Forum and on the Registrars Discussion List wherein it has already been noted
by the Registrars Constituency Chair that ?registrars are modifying their contracts to take over the
ownership of the name after expiry; the registrant has changed, and the
registrar is themselves the new registrant.?
I see an effort designed to thwart
the implementation of the Expired Domain Deletion Policy which is scheduled to
commence 21 December 2004. A policy
is needed to deal with these developments.
Thank you for considering this
matter.
Best regards,
Danny Younger
dannyyounger(at)yahoo.com