[NA-Discuss] Request to have a Fast Track PDP initiated
avri at ella.com
Tue Nov 30 11:21:38 UTC 2010
An added question I am wondering about where this policy intent stands on a groups who wants to retain a multitude of so-called premium names because they want to offer a service at the second and third levels with these so-called 'premium' names.
I also question the basic assumption of the perniciousness of the practice. Certainly in the case of the first IDN in a country, there is a restricted market, and that was one of my reason for having been so against IDN ccTLDs hitting the DNS before all of the IDN gTLD. Be that as it may, as a multitude of new gTLDs ae released, the scarcity argument that Evan makes is really reinforced.
I think any possible policy process about what Registrars and Registries can do at the second level will need to be very nuanced, and even if there were such a thing as a fast track PDP I see no way for a quick PDP on this subject.
On 29 Nov 2010, at 23:52, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> Hi Danny. Welcome back to NARALO.
> I understand your points about the Russian registrrar reserving "premium"
> domains for themselves. I also agree that such action is against the public
> I have long been bothered about domain-name speculatuion -- about how domain
> hoarders inflate the cost of domains while adding ZERO value to the process.
> But I am personally less concerned about whether the speculator is a
> contracted party or a registrant than the general negative effect of domain
> I'm certainly interested in working with you to advance this issue. But I
> have a couple of questions on this issue regarding my own confusion:
> 1. From the point of view of end-users, does it matter if the hoarder is
> a registry, registrar or domainer registrant? If so, why? When someone is
> (in the view of some) "shaken down" by a domain auction, does it matter to
> the buyer whether the domain speculator is a the creator of the domain, a
> reseller of it or another end-user?
> 2. I could personally understand the argument that registrars and
> registries have had to make investments and undertake risks to be able to
> provide domains, and as a result have added value to the Intrenet namespace.
> By contrast, an end-user registrant speculator creates no added value. Why
> should registrars and registries be held back from engaging in speculation
> if end-users are allowed to speculate?
> 3. Is the problem of scarcity one that can be fixed with a lot more TLDs?
> I mean, there's nothing holding a gun to anyone's head to buy domains at
> auction. If there are many more TLDs available, doesn't that reduce
> scarcity, icrease the risk to speculators and force the price down?
> 4. From the beginning ICANN has held, as a core principle, that domains
> are commodities first and identities second. To we want to reverse that? Is
> it too late?
> 5. Given that half of ICANN's policy-making body (the GNSO) is entities
> that make money by selling as mamy domains for as much money as possible,
> what is our realistic chance of advancing a policy change through that body
> that may significamtly reduce revenues?
> - Evan
> On 29 November 2010 22:09, Danny Younger <dannyyounger at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> Events that have transpired in the last few days attendant to the launch of
>> .рф have made it clear to me that although we can't deal with the troubling
>> issues that may arise with TLD launches in the ccTLD world, we do have the
>> ability to act to protect the public interest within the gTLD sphere by way
>> of a policy that would govern speculation in domain names by registrars.
>> By way of background, in the recent .рф ccTLD launch an ICANN accredited
>> registrar, RU-Center, decided to register domain names in its own name on a
>> priority basis and only then did it register other domain names.
>> Approximately 24,500 premium domains registered to RU-Center were then put
>> up for auction. The Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) then stepped
>> in, shut down the auctions and accused a number of registrars of collusion.
>> What can we learn from this? Simply put... greed in the new TLD launch
>> process can lead to abuse of the public trust, and measures need to be in
>> place to ensure that the public is protected from the ICANN-accredited
>> registrar community.
>> In our gTLD world, there is at the moment no ICANN policy whatsoever
>> governing speculation in, or warehousing of, domains by registrars.
>> Registrars are able to game the system to their own ends however they see
>> fit; this has to change.
>> The current RAA (section 3.7.9) states: "Registrar shall abide by any
>> ICANN adopted specifications or policies prohibiting or restricting
>> warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars".
>> As there is no such policy or specification, I suggest that we initiate a
>> PDP to have such a policy created, namely a policy that would state:
>> "No registrar, registrar affiliate, or reseller of registrar services shall
>> engage in warehousing of or speculation in domain names."
>> While I understand that the GNSO soon will broadly be looking at proposed
>> amendments for the RAA, we all know that the GNSO process (if spread over
>> the entirety of the RAA proposed amendments) can take years to arrive at a
>> recommendation... yet with the imminent roll-out of hundreds of new gTLDs,
>> we just don't have the luxury of waiting that long.
>> In my view, what is called for is a Fast Track PDP approach that would
>> focus on a single policy recommendation that could be put in place before
>> any new gTLD is launched.
>> I would ask the NARALO to bring this matter to the immediate attention of
>> the ALAC.
>> Thanks for your consideration of this issue.
>> Danny Younger
>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
More information about the NA-Discuss