Re: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

["Tim Langdell, PhD" <langdell@technologist.com>]

Russ

Thanks. That helps. But it seems our situation is somewhat unique: there
being a few cases where ICANN or NSI took back a domain (example.com and
e.com) but no other case I know of where they just changed their mind again
and put it back in the general pool. Or am I wrong?

Tim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Russ Smith" <russ@consumer.net>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes


> >My own situation might be unique (is it?) but nonetheless frustrating ...
I
> >was the first to register "edu.com" And we owned and operated the site
for
> >some months before getting a matter-of-fact letter from NSI telling us
that
> >they had reconsidered issuing this domain name.
>
> Your situation sounds somewhat unique in that they told you that you would
> get the domain again if it were reissued.  However, there are a number of
> similar problems such as domain hijackings, domains released in error then
> registered by another party, etc.  I was involved in 12 different
incidents
> of this type back with NSI where NSI gave me a free domain but gave me no
> other recourse.  NSI released Example.com and took it back and ICANN lost
> e.com and took it back.
>
> More recently there have been a number of cases where domains were
> incorrectly dropped by one registrar and then registered by someone else
> through another registrar.  Some of these have resulted in conflicting
> claims by the different parties.  Generally the registrars are left to
> handle these matters between themselves.  Most of the cases I have heard
of
> involved NSI registrar and payment processing (since they were the only
> registrar with renewals until recently) where the domain is released even
> though the owner claims payment was made.  The losing person complains to
> NSI, NSI then checks for an error (maybe), NSI notifies the new registrar
> and asks for the domain to be returned (maybe).
>
> Since there is no standard for handling these cases the response by the
> registrars has varied.  Some request different levels of verification from
> NSI.  Some allow the new domain owner to file a rebuttal.  Others simply
> take the domain away without any other action.  At least one case with
> races.com the new registrar refused to relinquish it.  Not long after this
a
> number of high profile domains were released by NSI and were owned by CNet
> (I believe welcome.com was one of them).  as a result many people see the
> system as unfair, capricious, and favoring big business because the
> registrars may base their decisions on who is more likely to sue.  Here is
> one story about some of the shared registry cases:
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,33753,00.html
>
> Where people have contacted ICANN in these cases the staff says that ICANN
> does not get involved.  However, many domain holders expected that ICANN
> would be the main arbiter of such cases.  Certainly I expected ICANN to
> develop a process to review such matters since the registrars often have
an
> interest in the outcome.  I view this function as a very high priority in
> managing a shared registry system and is particularly important in the
thin
> registry model we now have.  At the same time ICANN is seen as getting
> involved in issues which are viewed as well beyond their mandate.
>
> If we are keeping score I will give ICANN 0.5 points for getting involved
> with the shared registry system prior to their official designation of
> authority in Nov. 1999 and -1 point for not setting up a system to handle
> these situations for a total of -0.5.
>
> Russ Smith
> http://consumer.net
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html