[ga] New domain name policy issue

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

The registrar constituency has been engaged in an ongoing and highly 
contentious domain name policy debate since Stockholm; the issue -- expired 
domain names and recently adopted transfer policies.  For those of you 
interested in reviewing the public archives, the URL is:  <A 
HREF="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/maillist.html">
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/maillist.html</A>  

What is apparent to many of us is that as a result of recent activities, the 
consumer is being hurt.  Transfer requests are routinely being denied by 
certain registrars, often without explanation, and consumer confusion is 
rampant.  When is a domain name truly expired?  Why hasn't a domain been 
released to the registry after several months of being listed as expired?  
Under what conditions can a transfer be made or not made?  There are as many 
answers as there are registrars because the ICANN Registrar Accreditation 
Agreement provides no set policy.  

One should always start a debate on a domain name policy issue by asking, "is 
a 'uniform' consensus-based policy required?"  There are in fact, many times 
when market mechanisms should be allowed to run unrestricted (as long as 
registrants have the right to vote "with their feet" and walk away from 
unfavorable situations).  In recent months, however, a large number of 
registrants have been denied the opportunity to "walk away" through a 
transfer process because their transfer requests are being denied, often 
forcing them to renew with a given registrar prior to being allowed to depart 
to another such service provider.   

While I applaud the efforts of the registrar constituency to attempt to 
internally resolve these matters to their own mutual satisfaction, and while 
I support what appears to be their desire to bring this issue to the Names 
Council for consideration, I am concerned that the voice of small business 
and the voice of the individual is not being heard in these discussions.  In 
my opinion, this is an issue for the GA, and I hope that advocates for a 
Registrants' Bill of Rights will speak up on these matters.   

I know that many in this Assembly will be tempted to single-out certain 
registrars.  This is not our goal.  We are a body that should be acting in a 
capacity to bring opposing sides together through a consensus-building 
process in order to establish a mutually acceptable uniform consensus policy 
that benefits the public.  I look forward to further discussions on this 
topic.

Best regards,
Danny Younger
(again testing out a new email service)
--
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