RE: [ga] New Thread - Registrar Reform.

["Jon Lawrence" <jon@jonlawrence.com>]

Hi todd

You make some fair points here but you've lost me on a few of them:

>o-    There is no inherent right to force the domain owners to pay an
>additional two months penalty for switching a domain. This constitutes
>essentially ICANN put in place extortion of domain owners and has caused
>significant financial damage already. This needs to be changed immediately.

- can you clarify what you mean here?  I'm not aware of this with the registrars
I deal with

>    o-    In addition to the 60 pre-expiry "change lockout periods", the
>60
>day waiting period to be able to move a domain after it has expired is
also
>ludicrous.  When I want to move a domain and have a new contractual
>relationship with a new Registrar, then damn it I will move that name as
>its
>my IP, and not that of the Registrar.

- ditto - also not sure what you mean here as I've not encountered it? 


>    o-    There is another issue here and that is that registrars now keep
>portions of the registrants moneys for whatever periods of service that
the
>customer chooses not to stay for. This is also a problem since it means
that
>you are paying something for nothing and the only one profiting from this
>is
>the registrars. There is no refund for services not rendered currently
and
>this also is a mistake.

- If you transfer to a new registrar you keep all the time remaining on
your licence.  You don't lose anything (with the curious exception of com/net/org
names transferred shortly after expiry but thats a bug in verisigns system
not a policy flaw).

regards
jon


>-- Original Message --
>From: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
>To: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>, <ga@dnso.org>,
>        "Bret Fausett" <fausett@lextext.com>
>Cc: <DannyYounger@cs.com>, <jo-uk@rcn.com>,
>        "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
>Subject: [ga] New Thread - Registrar Reform.
>Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 06:43:33 -0700
>
>
>All-
>I am also one of those people that is struggling with moving domains. And
>I
>personally own 50 or 60 of them spread out across a half dozen Registrar's.
>With that said, there are several issues that MUST be attended to here
with
>the operations of the Registrars or it is my belief that lawsuits WILL
>ensue...  and that the first candidate's ICANN for setting  this menagerie
>up. In fact the ICANN operations model so strongly favors the Registrar
that
>there is considerable damage that this process allows the Registrar to
do
>to
>the client in the process of taking their money.
>
>With that said let me put out there that the whole registrant process is
>flawed. ICANN screwed up royally on this one.  The current Registrar
>Operations Model under ICANN's watchful eyes does not take into account
IP
>rights of the customer or the general rights of the customer as the
>contractual client of the Registrar. Lets not even get to the Dispute
>Resolution Process which is equally flawed.  They  (ICANN) also fail the
>privacy issues and that to is a problem, just one that we are not addressing
>herein.
>
>The key concept to remember here is that the Registrar is the publication
>agent for an "e-Marque", i.e. a domain name and that's it.
> Because of the specific failings listed below, I say that ICANN needs
to
>see a Surgeon very soon:
>
>    1)    WHOIS is not satisfactory as a statement of who owns what IP.
Read
>on and you will understand. What WHOIS is about is "who registered the
>"Domain Name" or "other Entity/Object" the last time" and the points of
>contact to them, and that is all. This is the inherent problem with whois.
>The only way to address this might be the stateful addition of a past tense
>to WHOIS DB's, creating essentially WHOWAS <some_domain>... and some new
>interpretation rules. This is essentially a problem with not ordering a
>custom WHOIS from the IETF to run the Internet by.
>
>Oh and the comment that the current WHOIS is totally functional is only
>going to be made by people that are technical in nature since anyone that
>comes up 50,000 feet and looks at it then will realize that it is not
>functional and why. This is what happens when you rely on the IETF and
its
>Management to build you a global solution... They do at ground level and
>never see the forest for the trees. So sad.
>
>Anyway -
>
>    2)    As mentioned above, the current ICANN philosophy makes the
>Registrar essentially a Publications Agent for the client and as such the
>registrars have several problems with how they operate now.
>    o-    Ones that have purchased organizations that also sell domains
just
>went to war with their customers and that is an unavoidable conflict of
>interest. So my claim here is that registrars MUST not own their own  pool
>of domains for sale, because by doing this they compete with their customers
>and there is no way to provably separate these two activates. As publication
>agents, they (the Registrars) retain no inherent claim against the IP they
>publish... so the current Registrar must release a Domain upon ***any***
>written demand from the domain owner or its care takers.
>    o-    There is no inherent right to force the domain owners to pay
an
>additional two months penalty for switching a domain. This constitutes
>essentially ICANN put in place extortion of domain owners and has caused
>significant financial damage already. This needs to be changed immediately.
>    o-    In addition to the 60 pre-expiry "change lockout periods", the
>60
>day waiting period to be able to move a domain after it has expired is
also
>ludicrous.  When I want to move a domain and have a new contractual
>relationship with a new Registrar, then damn it I will move that name as
>its
>my IP, and not that of the Registrar.
>    o-    There is another issue here and that is that registrars now keep
>portions of the registrants moneys for whatever periods of service that
the
>customer chooses not to stay for. This is also a problem since it means
that
>you are paying something for nothing and the only one profiting from this
>is
>the registrars. There is no refund for services not rendered currently
and
>this also is a mistake.
>
>    3)    Further there a  number of domains that I personally own the
IP
>under that I have intentionally expired. And this does not mean that I
am
>abandoning them, just that I chose not to reregister them with this
>Registrar again.
>    o-    It is the Registrar's responsibility to release these domains
>immediately.
>    o-    The concept that you could "stand in line for a name's
>availability" is ludicrous as well. Just because I do not renew a domain
>that was filed at one time with a certain registrar does not mean I am
>abandoning that specific IP. Just that my relationship on that domain is
>not
>being renewed with that Publications Agent, and that's all it means.
>Anything more is a different issue. This is why the incorporation of a
>WhoWas concept might make this easier to deal with.
>
>    4)    And finally there is no plan in place from ICANN for what to
do
>when a Registrar fails and takes their whole customer base down. The victims
>being the customers here. So what is the scenario for recovering from
>Registrar failure then?
>
>----
>
>Remember Internet-Internauts. The Internet is a bunch of agreements and
>treaties not the NSFNet or the previous ARPANet so it is not a Federally
>Funded communications system. What needs to happen here is that some
>consumer protection needs to be put in place to address the problems with
>the current operations models, and in no short order.
>
>Oh ,and placing these issues into the contract between the Consumer and
the
>Registrar may make it feasible to claim that these issues are part of the
>Registrar's Business Models, i.e as part of a contractual structure between
>the client and the supplier, but it also doesn't make it right either that
>ICANN is not looking out for the individual here.
>
>Todd Glassey
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
>To: <ga@dnso.org>; "Bret Fausett" <fausett@lextext.com>
>Cc: <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <ga@dnso.org>; <jo-uk@rcn.com>; "Cade,Marilyn
>S -
>LGA" <mcade@att.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 12:45 AM
>Subject: Re: [ga] Registrants unrepresented
>
>
>> I've asked the person who struggled with out transfers to provide some
>> details.  In the meantime, this is a note I received yesterday from
>someone
>> I have known for a long time, outside of the ICANN context.    Jamie
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From:  "XXXXXXXXXXXXX"
>> To: "James Love" <love@CPTECH.ORG>
>> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 4:43 PM
>> Subject: Verisign Crooks
>> Hi Jamie
>>
>> What scammers and crooks these guys are.
>> I finally divorced myself from these guys a few months ago and
>transferrred
>> all my domain registrations from them.
>> Now then send me a very clever notice telling me that the names are
>> expiring, but burying the fact that they are not longer the registration
>> agent.
>>
>> And, the envelope is directed to their "Expiration Department"
>>
>> Just like AOL is discovering that once a user becomes savvy they leave
>AOL,
>> Verisign is learning the same thing.
>>
>>   [snip]
>>
>> Attached Verisign Domain Name Expiration Notice
>> .............
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>


--
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