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

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Warehousing is a strange bird,
How can you warehouse something that does not exist?
As Dr. John has pointed out, it can only be created through a contract.
As I indelicately pointed out that is only possible through 
the "ownership" of IP addresses.
So warehousing is simply a function of using your IP addresses for the 
wrong reason.
Here is where the gTLDs fail.
e

> 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