Re: [ga] Policy Needed

Good direction and points here. Of those who who brandish old sores and failures of the past in response to this; I say get over it and move on, let go of your own resentments and help to resolve this looking forward not backward.

I have a linguistic problem here that lies at the core of many a fustration in dealings with such matters. I leave dictionary definitions to those who need to catch up and place these concepts in context.

Policy must be an overall picture, a framework toward which all implementations and restrictions and promotions must navigate. Rules, practices, laws, contract provisions deal with the how and why we are to reach the destination as set forth in the policy. A deviation from that strong compass mark must have good cause and a plan to comeback around to original headings. You are not asking for a new policy or to amend the old. You are demanding new regulations (of some sort) be placed to enforce the policy.

What you are suggesting and asking for is compliance with the clearly stated policy and objectives of the Internet Community as a whole. Here is where the rubber meets the road. We must apply carrot and stick provisions in order to incentivise the parties to bring

their own practices into compliance with the overall policy. No rational mind can deny the facts or the policy. Now we must reach a consensus on how to enforce that policy. Clearly good moral behavior will not reign in the lust for corporate profiting.

It would appear more a matter of ICANN enforcing the already in place contract provisions than writing something new.

Eric

Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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