[At-Large] Request to have a Fast Track PDP initiated

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Nov 30 04:49:09 UTC 2010


I agree with you in principle. I suspect a new consensus policy would 
need to be a bit more nuanced that what you suggest - for instance it 
would have to define the terms and would likely need some level of 
grand-fathering or phase-in for existing TLDs.

Details notwithstanding, for new gTLDs at least, the issue should be 
addressed. Although the situation described does not require vertical 
integration to function, VI will certainly not make it any better.

For better or worse, we do not currently have a Fast Track PDP 
process (one is being discussed, but that is, at best, quite a way 
off). I did a rough calculation of how long a PDP will take, assuming 
virtually no talk for actual discussion but just the Bylaw mandated 
times and the delays caused by the regular meeting schedule. It is 
about 5 months.

To that we need add in the time for actual discussion. How long that 
would be would depend on how much opposition there was, and I would 
assume there *will* be some. Overall, it *might* be done in time to 
see the first gTLD launch. Or not.

Under section 4.3.4 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), 
the Board *might* have the power to take emergency action pending a full PDP.

Certainly, this is an issue that at least deserves the consideration 
of the ALAC and a quick decision on whether an Issues Report should 
be considered.

A factor in this is whether the current gTLD process even considers 
that there needs to be an orderly roll-out (much as it mandates that 
IP rights need to be respected at launch).

Since my time on the ALAC is rather limited, and I am otherwise 
occupied for the next few days, can I ask that you do a first draft 
of a Request for and Issues Report - preferably as rhetoric-free as 
possible while still capturing the severity.


At 29/11/2010 10:09 PM, Danny Younger wrote:

>Dear all,
>Events that have transpired in the last few days attendant to the 
>launch of .?? 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 .?? 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

More information about the At-Large mailing list