Re: [ga] Re: [centr-ga] Re: [nc-deletes] FW: [council] Concerns Regarding Report of DeletesTask Force

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

The kind of registrar "warehousing of domains" that you allude to was indeed
demonstrated in the New TLD releases, when a number of registrars applied
for names for themselves, in some cases hundreds of names, and in some cases
in defiance of clearly stated registry-registrar rules.

And you are absolutely right : although various noble-sounding people have
talked about "no warehousing", ICANN does not appear to have got the
registries and registrars to introduce any rules about this, with the result
that some registrars will just do whatever they like.

The issue of registrar malpractice (for example, obtaining valuable names
for themselves through exploitation of registrar privilege - such as the
ability to submit ultra-short lists to 'queue jump' the round-robin process)
was raised in a letter I sent to Dan Halloran last April, in the aftermath
of the .biz2B release.

I pointed out that if ICANN and the registries took no action, then exactly
the same kind of abuse of privilege would take place in the .info Landrush
2.

One year later, Dan Halloran has not even acknowledged receipt of my
mailings, but sure enough the same thing happened in .info LR2 : registrars
obtaining and/or stockpiling valuable names, just because they had the power
and opportunity to.

It is as clear as the light of day that ICANN needs to make the distribution
of the rights to run registries *conditional* on the implementation of a set
of minimum standards. This should be written into future Agreements.

The new ICANN CEO hales from Australia, and he is well aware that Australia
has led the way in *requiring* a code of minimum standards (including, Mr
Halloran, maximum periods for responding to consumers). A number of
registrars in the industry have also been pressing for some kind of
mandatory code.

Otherwise, the good name of reputable registrars, along with the integrity
of the whole DNS process, gets besmirched by rogue registrars who use the
lack of mandatory standards as an opportunity to use their registrar roles t
o milk the system for their own benefit, instead of providing a vital
service to the worldwide public.

I well remember telephoning a business partner of Signature Domains, on the
morning after the .biz2B allocations were announced. Signature Domains had
not gained a single registration for any customer. The only beneficiary of
the .biz2B through their "service" was themselves - specifically their
business partner, who gained seven or eight of the most sought after generic
names, because their list had been so short that his own name came up again
and again in the earliest rounds of the round robin.

When I spoke to him, he admitted his part in it, but asked me to refer to
the Signature Domains boss, "because he knows all about it".

Then you have registrars like BondiLLC which seemed to be set up with the
primary purpose of obtaining key names in the New TLD releases for a
specific wealthy customer (if he wasn't actually a partner). After the
roll-outs they seem to disappear off the map again and return to obscurity.

Or you have companies like YESNIC who submitted fake details on their own
behalf for over 200 names in the .info Sunrise (this practice was shown up
by WIPO).

Or look at the Hal Lubsen case, where he had close associations with
DomainBank (who charged to sponsor ineligible applications which broke
Afilias rules), whereas he was also CEO (and now Director) of Afilias (who
granted the applications, even though they lacked mandatory data in the
Trademark fields without which no registration was allowed to take place.
DomainBank charged $15000 in one case for 93 names "sold" to one Lorenz,
which they knew were not eligible according to the rules. Afilias being a
cartel of registrars including DomainBank, they refused to delete the
registrations, and DomainBank pursued Lorenz for payment, even after he
asked 20 times for cancellation, and even after DomainBank knew that they
were charging him for something that was worthless.)

Another member of the Afilias Cartel/Board sold 4981 fake names to a single
customer in the .info Sunrise, to the tune of $500,000.

Indeed, the .info fiasco, and the incestuous relationship of Registry
Directors who were also a cartel of Registrars, has been documented in
detail at ICANNWatch. The lack of clearly defined Agreements, and the abject
failure of ICANN to insist on the implementation of rules, led to fraud,
consumer grievance, and rocked the credibility of ICANN.

In short, your observation about the "warehousing of domains by registrars"
is indicative of a whole "laissez-faire" culture (a term Dan Halloran
applied in interview to ICANN's approach to regulation etc. Such is the
reluctance to regulate, that consumers are left to fend for themselves, and
everyone knows how hard it is to pursue grievances across national
boundaries, resorting to local consumer laws which have no authority over
actions carried out overseas or in virtual obscurity.

You ask: "What is a domain name?"

It cannot be simply a contract between a Registry, a Registrar, and a
Registrant. It is the bringing into operation of a commodity : a commodity
of sometimes vital importance to people. The domain name is the vessel for
all the web-building, and communications, and trading upon which more and
more people are dependent. It is not therefore just a piece of paper,
because by its operation it brings into being business and dependency that
does not go away at the expiry of the cycle.

A domain name is operative and dynamic : not just conceptual and
contractual.

Because human society is dynamic too, it is essential that the system that
"delivers" our needs and services should be administered in the interests of
the common good - not just left in some deregulated no-man's land. What I
feel ICANN has failed to recognise, is that technical mission and moral
responsibility are inseparable. They have tried to wash their hands of the
responsibility, in line with Dan Halloran's "laissez-faire" model. Many will
say they should, that they should just be technical, that they cannot
regulate for the internet all over the world.

I find that an abdication and a reduction of the DNS to merely a set of
numbers and letters. Taking that further, the registry and registrar
businesses can operate in similarly unregulated and humanity-free cultures
(at least, the unscrupulous elements can).

I believe that the world community wants "the fair distribution of the DNS".
I believe that the world community wants ICANN to be accountable, and not
just to the US government. I believe that the world community wants the DNS
to be administered with certain basic but mandatory standards, so that this
essential resource is trusted and reliable.

It is not a question of ICANN passing laws to be effective in countries all
over the world. Clearly it is powerless to do that. However, through the use
of Contract / Agreement, ICANN *can* make the allocation of new Registries
*conditional* on clearly-defined principles and rules and standards, which
Registries in turn must enforce (by Contract / Agreement) on Registrars.
Failure to enforce would lead to revocation of rights or profits.

This would pre-empt many problems and act as a defence and sanction against
cowboy operators.

Instead of which, the DNS operates a bit like the Wild West, with the good,
the bad and the ugly. Rogue registrars commit fraud and eighteen months
later... oh look... ICANN lists and endorses them as "accredited" to a
gullible and dependent public who know no better.

The relationship of ICANN to Registries and Registrars cannot just be
"laissez-faire". Nor is it acceptable for Mr Dan Halloran (ICANN-Registrar
liaison) to ignore mail, perhaps because it is awkward and inconvenient to
him. A year I have waited for him to acknowledge my mail - it has been
re-sent - it has been publicised - and it raised serious and legitimate
concerns. But at ICANN "laissez-faire" and lack of accountability seem to be
part of a collective culture.

A culture that supports the interests of the few at the expense of the many.
A culture that seems to uphold a closely-knit community of ICANN people,
Registry operators and Registrars (often the same people). A culture that
seems to fail for a lack of real vision of the dynamic imperative of the
internet...in turning domain names into communities, and education, and
contact, and humour, and trade, and aid, and the bringing of peoples
together.

The reduction of DNS policy to "just numbers/letters in a string" is a
fallacy. It is time ICANN:

(a) made itself accountable to the world, not just the US government
(b) took responsibility for open dialogue and informed policy development
(c) operated in a professional manner, was responsive, and transparent
(d) protected end-users by insisting on Codes of Conduct and enforcing their
implementation, through the use of sanctions and suspension of registry
rights or registrar accreditation where rules were flouted
(e) introduced truly democratic processes into its power-base, instead of
nominees and cliques

Of course the world is imperfect. But ICANN's refusal to engage in open and
moral pursuit of standards brings discredit on itself, brings discredit on
the DNS, and brings discredit on the US Government who are seen to support a
scorned operation, and sponsor it simply as a means of retaining control of
the overall system.

John, a domain name is both a "being" and a "becoming" : both an entity in
itself and a potentiality in what it delivers and what it can become. Whole
communities can become dependent on a single domain name (I know, because I
run a community website). It is good that deletes policy is defined and I
actually agree (in this instance) with much of what Louis Touton recently
said. But we also need to define (more stringently) how domain names come
into being, how they are fairly distributed, how they are transferred, how
they are protected. We need to defend the DNS from predators. We need
Agreements which *insist* and not just *hope and suggest*.

A contract to operate a domain name is just a "contract". But the domain
name itself is both the string of numbers and everything that it unlocks and
enables and delivers into being - it is a commodity which works dynamically.
It is both the numbers and what the numbers activate. It is not just a
contract, any more than the house I buy is the contact with which I sign for
it.

Sadly ICANN has acted too often as if there is no urgent and dependent human
dimension operating in relation to the number strings. They seem to inhabit
a separate, de-regulated universe where rules don't have to apply. Hence the
registrar warehousing that you refer to most obviously goes on. There are no
rules against it... but it is most certainly *NOT* "the fair distribution of
the DNS" which ICANN was set up to ensure.


Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. <john@johnberryhill.com>
To: Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>
Cc: <cgomes@verisign.com>; <el@ac.lisse.na>; <fausett@lextext.com>;
<cctld-discuss@wwtld.org>; <nc-deletes@dnso.org>;
<jordyn.buchanan@registrypro.com>; <ga@dnso.org>; <touton@icann.org>;
<ga@centr.org>; <halloran@icann.org>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [centr-ga] Re: [nc-deletes] FW: [council] Concerns
Regarding Report of DeletesTask Force


> From: "Eric Dierker" <eric@hi-tek.com>
> >
> > What you have written here suggests that the registrar owns a domain
name
> as
> > something seperate from an IP address.  I find this illusive if not down
> > right wrong.
>
> I have no idea how you get that out of what I wrote.
>
> The point here is that a domain name is whatever the registration contract
> defines it to be.  And presently, contracts for .com domain names define
them
> as having a fixed term of registration.
>
> It's very simple.  If I agree to feed your dog every day for a term of one
> year beginning on May 1, 2003, then on May 2, 2004, I will not show up to
> feed your dog.  How hard is that to understand?
>
> Now, let's say in January 2004, someone came along claiming that I was
> supposed to be feeding his dog instead of yours.  The two of you can fight
> all you want, but I still can guaran-dang-tee you that, come May 2, 2004,
I
> am not going to be feeding ANYBODY'S dog unless I get paid for another
year's
> supply of dog food.  It is that simple.
>
> And this exercise in defining deletion policy is, in part, an exercise in
> defining what a domain name *is* for those registries subject to the
policy.
>
> The objection to having a uniform deletion policy is simply "because some
> people want domain names to do something different, then it will lead to
> problems if domain names don't do what those people want them to do."
That
> kind of objection is circular.
>
> If it is established as an inherent property of a domain name registration
> that "it will expire if the renewal is not paid", then the source of
problems
> will be picking out when an 'exception' is desired and when an 'exception'
is
> not desired.
>
> There are definite and well-known perceived 'abuses' that have arisen from
> the curious deletion policies of certain registrars.  If you want to
continue
> to delete names on a loosy-goosy "do what feels right in the particular
> situation" way, then that's fine, but you don't need a policy to keep
doing
> that.  Now, already in this process, we have seen a registry
representative
> assert that there was something in the RAA that prevents registrar name
> warehousing, but when challenged to point out where, not a peep was heard.
> The reason is that the RAA contemplates some future "consensus policy" on
> name deletions and registrar warehousing, but no such consensus policy has
> ever been adopted.
>
> And, absolutely, there are all kinds of situations where people do not
comply
> with contracts, or pay fees for services, for all sorts of justifiable and
> perfectly sympathetic reasons.  But let's get real about this - if a
domain
> name is important to someone, then they can certainly pay, right now, for
up
> to TEN YEARS of registration for less than around $200.  Good golly, if we
> are still futzing around with domain names ten years from now, then just
> shoot me.
>
> --
> 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