[lac-discuss-en] [NA-Discuss] "Chicken and Egg" Problem

Garth Bruen at Knujon.com gbruen at knujon.com
Mon Apr 2 19:54:02 UTC 2012


And the number of Registrars participating in this practice is growing.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 3:33 PM
To: <gbruen at knujon.com>; "Eduardo Diaz" <eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>
Cc: "LACRALO discussion list" <lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; 
<na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] "Chicken and Egg" Problem

> Indeed, and if one believes the that the number of domain names used for 
> spam and phishing and monetization is as large as some people imply, 
> imagine the liability to ICANN of we could eliminate all of that (as 
> clearly some people wish).
>
> The way ahead is fraught with problems.
>
> Alan
>
> At 02/04/2012 02:48 PM, gbruen at knujon.com wrote:
>>I'm concerned about the very specific influence this creates if a 
>>registrar decides to drop all of their extra accreditations at once, 
>>pulling up to 4% ICANN's budget out from under the organization.
>>
>>It is a Sword of Damocles
>>
>>http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles
>>
>>
>>Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>>Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:40:02
>>To: Eduardo Diaz<eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>; Garth Bruen at Knujon 
>>com<gbruen at knujon.com>
>>Cc: LACRALO discussion list<lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; 
>><na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] "Chicken and Egg" Problem
>>
>>I doubt that Moniker does this as a benevolent way to fund ICANN.
>>Multiple accreditations allow them (perhaps among other things) them
>>to pick up more dropped names quickly, overcoming the rules some
>>registries have in place regarding the number (or rate) of pickups of
>>dropped names. My understanding is that some registries (.org in
>>particular) place additional limits on drop-catching, but I don't
>>recall the details.
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>At 02/04/2012 01:25 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote:
>> >Wow! This is very interesting. Why somebody will pay ICANN $436k for a 
>> >no
>> >return on investment?
>> >
>> >-ed
>> >
>> >On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com <
>> >gbruen at knujon.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > (Apologies for list cross-posts)
>> > >
>> > > Folks,
>> > >
>> > > Recent discussions with ICANN compliance have revealed what
>> appears to be a
>> > > new standard (or perhaps it was always the standard) for triggering
>> > > Registrar contract obligations. According to compliance, certain 
>> > > contract
>> > > obligations (like posting of policies, terms, pricing and
>> WHOIS) cannot be
>> > > enforced until the Registrar actually sponsors domain names.
>> > >
>> > > This came up because several new Registrars did not appear to have 
>> > > these
>> > > basic components on their websites (some had no website at
>> all). Compliance
>> > > stated the obligations could not be enforced because the Registrars 
>> > > in
>> > > question had no domains yet.
>> > >
>> > > In my view this presents a number of problems. The first is
>> that Registrars
>> > > should demonstrate their ability and willingness to provide required
>> > > services before sponsoring domain names. The second is that it
>> would seem a
>> > > Registrar could be non-transparent to their first customer, hence
>> > > "chicken-and-egg."  Signing of the contract should the trigger these
>> > > requirements not the presence of domain names.
>> > >
>> > > One additional problem is a little more complex. A Registrar called
>> > > Nameescape.com LLC has no operational website, this has been the case 
>> > > for
>> > > several years and possibly since they were accredited. This
>> Registrar is a
>> > > Moniker shell company, who already has 109 superfluous 
>> > > accreditations. At
>> > > one point the cartels would at least attempt to appear
>> independent, now it
>> > > seems there is no long even a pretense and accreditations can
>> simply become
>> > > "placeholders." This isn't a simple problem since these additional
>> > > accreditations allow Moniker to add $436,000 to ICANN's coffers
>> each year,
>> > > and now it appears they don't have to pretend to actually want to 
>> > > sell
>> > > domain names. It's something to think about as we continue to
>> discuss COI.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks, Garth
>> > >
>> > > -------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > > Garth Bruen
>> > > gbruen at knujon.com
>> > >
>> > > 617-947-3805
>> > > http://www.knujon.com
>> > > http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724
>> > > The Death of the Internet: How It May Happen and How It Can Be 
>> > > Stopped,
>> > > ISBN:1118062418
>> > > Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205
>> > > Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/
>> > > Twitter: @Knujon
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ------
>> > > NA-Discuss mailing list
>> > > NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>> > >
>> > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>> > > ------
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended 
>> >only
>> >for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. 
>> >If
>> >you have received this communication by error, please notify us 
>> >immediately
>> >by e-mail, and delete the original message.
>> >------
>> >NA-Discuss mailing list
>> >NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>> >
>> >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>> >------
>
> 


More information about the lac-discuss-en mailing list