RE: [registrars] Registrar Warehousing History 101

["David Wascher" <dwascher@iaregistry.com>]

All,
I would like to point out that a charge back is not just the lost of the now
$6 but also bank fees. Anyone of us that deals with credit cards should be
aware of these changes. For us we have $25 bank fee for the charge back
including the $10 transaction fee.

David Wascher

::-----Original Message-----
::From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
::Behalf Of Michael D Palage
::Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 5:58 PM
::To: registrars@dnso.org
::Subject: [registrars] Registrar Warehousing History 101
::
::
::Hello All:
::
::I would like to provide a little historical background into the
::"warehousing" issue. Unfortunately this has been an issue that has been a
::focal point since the second registrar meeting in Chile (Summer 2000).
::During that meeting, this issue surfaced in connection with credit card
::charge backs. Specifically what was a registrar to do if after
::registering a
::domain name the registrar was to lose payment in connection with a credit
::card charge back. Several CORE members (if my memory serves me correct
::Amadeau, Bob Connelly & Ken Stubbs were very vocal on this topic) talked
::about the registrar deleting the name and eating the then ($9)
::registry fee
::as a cost of doing business.
::
::Lauren Gaviser (RCOM's then Policy Person) objected based upon the grounds
::that this requirement would prohibit registrars from potentially reselling
::the name to another party in an attempt to recoup their initial lose.
::Heading into the fall meeting in LA (Fall 2000), the Registrar
::focus shifted
::toward bring NSI into the ICANN family and having them become an ICANN
::accredited registrar.
::
::In early 2001, the Registrar Constituency refocused its effort on
::warehousing in connection with a Code of Conduct. In the ICANN Registrar
::Accreditation Agreement there are two provisions that are
::relevant for this
::discussion.
::
::Section 3.7.1 which states:
::
::In the event ICANN adopts a specification or policy, supported by a
::consensus of ICANN-Accredited registrars, establishing or approving a Code
::of Conduct for ICANN-Accredited registrars, Registrar shall abide by that
::Code.
::
::and Section 3.7.9 which states:
::
::Registrar shall abide by any ICANN adopted specifications or policies
::prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in
::domain names by
::registrars.
::
::The Code of Conduct Task Force was headed up by Richard Lindsay in the
::Spring and Summer of 2000. After several telephone conferences
::and in person
::meetings, the biggest being in Yokohama, Japan a document was produced.
::However, instead of calling it a Code of Conduct, I believe it
::was called a
::Best Practices Document. I was not an active participant in this
::group so do
::not hold me to the exact sequence of events. I believe the last
::revision of
::this document currently appears on the Registrar website at
::http://www.icann-registrars.org/html%20docs/CodeofConduct3.htm.
::
::I seem to remember that there was a debate over how this document would be
::adopted by ICANN so that it would be enforced against all registrars. Much
::the like Transfer and WLS debacles, there was discussion of whether this
::needed to go through the DNSO Names Council to receive input from other
::constituencies or if this could have just been adopted by the Board. Scary
::how history repeats itself. During the Summer and Fall of 2000,
::the majority
::of the constituency was distracted with the new TLD proof of concept
::process.
::
::Although there was talk of trying to get this initiative back on track in
::the new year, ICANN and VeriSign sprung the Restructuring
::contracts on us in
::March of 2001. Heading into the Summer and Fall of 2001, Transfer and WLS
::moved to the forefront and the Code of Conduct has remained on the back
::burner.
::
::Now that we are back in the present, I agree that warehousing needs to be
::addressed as well as whois data mining, transfers and other issues that
::directly impact day to day registrar operations. Historically I believe it
::would not be prudent to attempt a comprehensive Code of Conduct. When this
::was tried in the past different fractions , based upon different registrar
::business models, formed to prevent meaningful progress. I would
::respectfully
::submit that the best way to go is to start off  with a Code of Conduct
::skeleton, and then add pieces to it in an incremental manner. By tackling
::the problems one at a time, you will be able to get consensus on
::each items
::instead of the whole document. Much like running a marathon you
::have to run
::each mile one at a time.
::
::Hopefully this provided some insight into the Registrar
::Warehousing problem.
::Although there is a mechanism for us to resolve this problem, nothing will
::happen until action is taken.
::
::Best regards,
::
::Mike
::
::
::