[NA-Discuss] [Fwd: Re: [registrars] OUTCOMES REPORT OF THE GNSO AD HOC GROUP ON DOMAIN NAME TASTING]

[Danny Younger]

Ross,

For some time now within the Domain Tasting Ad Hoc
Working Group we have been discussing 3.7.4.  As you
are aware, there are several members of ICANN Staff
that participate in this WG, so they are clearly aware
that we have made note of the lack of enforcement
pertaining to this clause.

Perhaps at the LA session Stacey Burnette's team ought
to be asked whether they will or will not be enforcing
this clause...

I remind everyone that ICANN, in the Joint Project
Agreement with the US DOC, agreed to devote "adequate
resources to contract enforcement".  

regards,
Danny




--- Ross Rader <ross at tucows.com> wrote:

> Generally speaking, the "Add Grace Period" (AGP)
> should be a net 
> positive benefit for users (i.e. if you make a typo
> when you register a 
> name, your registrar can fix it for you). However,
> most AGP exploits 
> heavily dilute the public benefit aspect of the AGP.
> Some have likened 
> AGP exploitation to strip mining in that they
> consume vast amounts of 
> resources to extract a very small benefit for a
> highly limited number of 
> actors.
> 
> Earlier today, I realized that most current AGP
> exploits (kiting, 
> tasting and their kin) would seem to be in violation
> of section 3.4.7 of 
> the Registrar Accreditation Agreement as I outlined
> below to a post to 
> the registrar constituency.
> 
> If this is the case, shouldn't we be pushing for
> proactive enforcement 
> of these types of clauses? I have heard in the past
> that enforcement is 
> difficult because ICANN staff only have the
> capability to de-accredit 
> registrars as a penalty, which might be an overly
> harsh penalty in most 
> cases. On the other hand, I'm aware that some
> country code registries 
> faced with the similar option have made enforcement
> penalties a menu of 
> possibilities that the registrar can choose from
> insttead of facing 
> de-accreditation (i.e. "you can choose to pay the
> optional $5000 fine 
> and if you do, we'll take de-accreditation off the
> table"). Wouldn't 
> these types of solutions allow ICANN to start
> enforcing their contracts 
> now? I mean, there is nothing better than a
> carefully documented 
> sanctions program that has explicit enforcement
> hooks in the contracts, 
> but why do we have to wait for that perfect state?
> It seems to me that 
> ICANN is choosing not to enforce its contracts and
> in the meantime, the 
> general public is getting worked over by those who
> choose to ignore the 
> terms of their deal with ICANN.
> 
> Copied below is my message to the RC regarding the
> AGP exploits and the 
> clauses of the contract that should explicitly deal
> with these issues 
> already.
> 
> I'd be interested in other views on ICANN's
> enforcement of these clauses 
> and whether or not we need to wait for a PDP to
> conclude before we get 
> action on these issues.
> 
> -ross
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [registrars] OUTCOMES REPORT OF THE
> GNSO AD HOC GROUP ON 
> DOMAIN NAME TASTING
> Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:13:52 -0400
> From: Ross Rader <ross at tucows.com>
> Reply-To: ross at tucows.com
> Organization: Tucows Inc.
> CC: Registrars Constituency
> <registrars at gnso.icann.org>
> References:
> <200710031500.l93Exixs012158 at pechora2.lax.icann.org>
> 
> 
> Robert F. Connelly wrote:
> > Dear Registrars:
> >
> > The following is the present draft of the
> "Outcomes Report".  It 
> deals with uses
> > of the AGP other than domain tasting.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Isn't this practice...
> 
> > On the other hand, there are some registrars that
> have created a cart 
> reserve
> > process utilizing the AGP, that immediately adds
> the domain at the 
> registry once
> > it gets looked up by the user. This completely
> mitigates the issue of 
> the domain
> > being otherwise provisioned by another while
> completing the sales 
> process. If
> > the sales process is not completed, or nearly 5
> days passes, the 
> domain is
> > deleted at the registry.
> 
> ...a violation of provision 3.7.4 [1] of the RAA? No
> reasonable
> assurance of payment has been secured in any way for
> these types of
> transactions.
> 
> Furthermore, couldn't the whole issue of kiting and
> tasting be addressed
> through proper enforcement of this clause? I mean,
> in 99.999% (or
> whatever the sickly high number is) of tasting
> transactions, there is no
> reasonable assurance of payment by a registrant. By
> definition, the
> customer knows that they won't have to pay for those
> transactions. Why
> do we need a PDP to deal with this when there is
> clearly sufficient room
> in the current contract for ICANN to deal with the
> practice?
> 
> I can understand wanting to tighten up the agreement
> after it has been
> demonstrated that enforcement has proven difficult
> or inefficient, but
> I'm not aware that this clause has *ever* been
> enforced.
> 
> I've requested that the GNSO Chair ask staff for
> more information
> regarding their enforcement of this clause and
> whether or not it is, or
> could be, an effective hedge against AGP abuse in
> practice.
> 
> -ross
> 
> 
> [1] RAA 3.7.4 Registrar shall not activate any
> Registered Name unless
> and until it is satisfied that it has received a
> reasonable assurance of
> payment of its registration fee. For this purpose, a
> charge to a credit
> card, general commercial terms extended to
> creditworthy customers, or
> other mechanism providing a similar level of
> assurance of payment shall
> be sufficient, provided that the obligation to pay
> becomes final and
> non-revocable by the Registered Name Holder upon
> activation of the
> registration.
> 
> Robert F. Connelly wrote:
> > Dear Registrars:
> > 
> > The following is the present draft of the
> "Outcomes Report".  It deals with uses 
> > of the AGP other than domain tasting.
> > 
> > It is a redlined version and I see that the
> redlined elements did not survive my 
> > cut and paste efforts. 
> > 
> > Regards, BobC
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > *4.3Opinion Polling of Registrars regarding use of
> AGP
> > 
> > 
> > *Following statements within the group that the
> AGP was sometimes used by 
> > registrars for other purposes, not connected to
> domain tasting or corrections of 
> > misspelled names, the question was raised to some
> registrars to exemplify their 
> > uses of the AGP. Below is an excerpted, edited
> version of the submission 
> > provided by the registrar representatives in the
> group, the complete submission 
> > is in Annex __:
> > 
> > 
> > The RFI regarding the use of AGP posed three
> different options to consider in 
> > remedying the current abuses in AGP: (1) making
> the ICANN fee non-refundable; 
> 
=== message truncated ===



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/index.html