- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Proposed research on registrar transfer-away fees
by Danny Younger March 8, 2007

March 8, 2007

Aloha Randi, Re: I have never used a registrar that charged a fee for transferring away domains... Consider this article in Slashdot: saikou writes "There were previous reports of GoDaddy, one of the biggest domain name registrars, attacking Bittorrent sites with frivolous interpretation of their own Terms of Service (that story was resolved), and now similar events unfold with clients of one of Russian domain registrars Majordomo.ru -- GoDaddy has informed them that all 1399 client domains are now blocked (story in Russian) due to 'many of your domain names were listed in the Spamhaus.org blacklist or were resolving to a name server or IP address listed in the Spamhaus.org blacklist' with a demand of a neat '$199 non-refundable administration fee to the credit card on file for your account for each domain name you wish to reactivate' or $50 for each domain to be transferred out into another registrar." http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/17/1319233 We know that some registrars are engaged in this practice and that others are contemplating charging such fees: >From the registrars list (comment from Rob Hall) "But on the broader note, I wonder aloud at which point a Registrar can impose it's own contractual provisions that override policies like the transfer policy. It would not be hard for a Registrar to put into place a non-transfer provision that lasts lets say 180 days, or a year after a renewal or other domain event. Or how about we just start charging a $50 admin fee to handle the transfer away. This fee would become due the second the transfer was applied for, so it would be a case of money owing on the existing domain registration which would allow for the transfer to be denied. hmmm." http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg04255.html This type of research project will take us out of the anecdotal arena (where we need to rely on third-party allegations that are prevalent on many webmaster forums) and into empirical research. We may be looking at the start of a trend or at a trend that might already be in full blossom or we might find that such fees are in reality somewhat rare. Whatever the case, the domain name registrant can only be helped by such an initiative that might ultimately lead to a policy recommendation along the lines of that which is already in place at auDA: "Neither the losing registrar nor the gaining registrar is permitted to charge a transfer fee." http://www.auda.org.au/pdf/auda-transfers-response.pdf --- RJGlass <jipshida(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I have never used a registrar that charged a fee for > transferring away domains. Nor would I use that > registrar if i had a choice, even if their annual > registration fees were cheaper. I would think > something like this would fall into monopolistic > practices by registrars. I find that the most > irritating issues with registrars are 1) lack of any > customer service - except Godaddy (I have been > trying to contact a human from enom for 3 days), and > 2) tranferring domains. > > On one hand, the barriers to transferring domains > between registrars enhances security, on the other > hand there seems to be little standardization and > consistency. > > -RJGlass > A@L > > ____________________ > > Domain name services > http://www.Psyberdomain.com > > Help the needy > http://www.DDMF.org > > Help yourself > http://www.AmericaAtLarge.org > ------------------------- > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> > To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>; At-Large > Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2007 2:25:42 PM > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Proposed research on registrar > transfer-away fees > > Thanks to Danny Younger for starting this > conversation. > > Danny has proposed that the ALAC initiate research > on a specific, > registrant-affecting question: What are the scope > and magnitude of > transfer-away fees among the various registrars? > These fees, charged to > domain-name registrants when they seek to leave one > registrar for > another, can lock registrants in to a registrar who > no longer serves > their needs (as has happened in droves with former > Registerfly > customers). High fees can also contravene the intent > of the uniform > transfers policy. We have seen little public > information about these fees. > > So, here is a focused research task: > For each registrar, ask > Is there a transfer-away fee for registrants to take > their domain names > to another registrar? > If so, what is the fee? > Is the transfer-away fee disclosed to the registrant > at the time of > registration? > Where and how is such disclosure made? > Is the fee subject to change? > > After we decide whether these are the relevant > questions, we should ask > staff to contact all registrars for their responses, > and/or review > public information on the registrars' websites. > > If you're interested in this research, please > respond to this message > with your thoughts. > > --Wendy > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law > School > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [AFRI-Discuss] RE : Re: Question
by Pierre Dandjinou March 7, 2007

March 7, 2007

Dear Vittorio and all, I wish to concur with Mohammed and I guess this one is a hot topic at the Board level for the time being. One issue is how we do separate politics from territories. The other one is which principles Icann should adopt to guarantee neutrality in such cases. Regards Pierre

1 0

RegisterFly situation
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 7, 2007

March 7, 2007

Dear Community: I thought you would be interested in seeing the text of emails which ICANN staff are sending to the large numbers of RegisterFly customers who are contacting ICANN directly for help with their domains, as it also provides some information on what actions ICANN is taking to deal with the situation. --- Thank you for your email. ICANN is taking action in relation to RegisterFly. We have found them to be in breach of their Accreditation Agreement and we have demanded that they address these breaches. In addition to this legal action, ICANN convened a telephone conference among those needed to implement a plan that will help cease unintended deletions. The participants were Registries holding RegisterFly names. The Registries involved have agreed to move any RegisterFly names in Redemption Grace Period status into Server-Delete-Prohibited status. This will prevent them from being deleted from the registry and becoming available for re-registration by others. ICANN is also working to copy and protect data regarding registration applications and registered name holders. Our website http://www.icann.org and our blog http://blog.icann.org/ are updated regularly with information about what ICANN is doing to assist people affected and this is the best source for you to get information you need in the future. Information on transfer policy can also be found at http:// www.icann.org/transfers/ I do appreciate how stressful this situation must be for you and hope the information above is of assistance. --- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Policy matters for conference call agenda
by Wendy Seltzer March 6, 2007

March 6, 2007

I added some of the policy issues to our Mar 6 agenda. <https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?6_march_2007> (It's a wiki, so feel free to add, subtract, or rearrange.) I propose that we run through these with no more than a couple minutes each, to see where we want to generate input and of what sort. Policy Matters for Discussion 1. Domain Tasting: Update from Nick on Issues Report, start a PDP already (ws suggests) 2. Registerfly situation: ICANN's non-enforcement of its contracts and what that means to the public as third-party beneficiary (even if such status is disclaimed in the contracts) 3. gTLDs. Yes, .xxx is up for discussion again; does the GAC want veto rights over new TLD strings? 4. IDNs. Why can't domain re-sellers participate in the IDN process? 5. LSE's GNSO review and upcoming ALAC review. Yet Another ICANN Reform Process? --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

4 4

Preparing for Lisbon: Resolutions from At-Large to the larger community?
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 6, 2007

March 6, 2007

Dear All: May I suggest to you that the At-Large community has a unique opportunity at the upcoming Lisbon meeting to agree a few resolutions on key issues which are in the public and icann policy 'Eye' at the moment. With at least two RALO MoUs being concluded, and likely the European one too, the conference will have a big spotlight on the community. I submit for you all to consider that this spotlight could be used by the community to focus attention on the issues which you care about. There could for example be resolutions on: 1) Domain Tasting - the negative consequences to end-users which many in the community have highlighted and a call for the GNSO and ICANN Board to begin a PDP as an urgent matter; 2) Registry and Registrar performance - the issue of Registerfly has brought to the fore issues of enforcement and the role of ICANN in enforcing these contracts. A resolution could highlight these and call for action; a number of proposed actions have been mooted on community lists. There's also the issue of switching registrars and the difficulty that poses for people which has been brought up in the African discussion lists By resolution, I mean something brief - one page per issue - in the style of a UN resolution with adjectives leading each paragraph of a preamble section, and then a section with specific recommendations for action (not in great detail necessarily but the high-level principles or actions which should be made). At the ALAC monthly teleconference on 6th March, could the committee perhaps propose to discuss this? If one member of the committee could draft a one-page document on the above structure to be completed within a week, then there would be time to send it out to all the regions for their review and comment, and then at Lisbon the two regions present and the ALAC could agree a final text and release it to the rest of ICANN. If nobody on the ALAC is able to do the drafting, I'm happy to do a draft as a "backup drafter" and then forward it to be reviewed. I hope this will not be thought presumptuous. I don't wish to 'take over' the policy work of the community, but I do see a real opportunity for the community to make a big splash of substance at the next meeting and wouldn't like to see that opportunity lost or wasted. At the same time I do understand that people are all volunteers and I'm happy to help in any way I can. There are those - even in the community - who do not believe the At- Large community has the ability to influence ICANN's work. I do not believe they're right, but it seems to me one of the best ways to find out is to take a strong stand and suggest proactive steps to improve things. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

6 6

Can individuals participate as equal members of RALOs?
by Wendy Seltzer March 5, 2007

March 5, 2007

A question: For each region that is constructing or has constructed a RALO, can unaffiliated individuals participate on an equal footing with ALS-affiliated individuals? I'm concerned that the layering of structures not disenfranchise individuals even further than they already are, but rather attempt to provide them with more channels for direct input into ICANN. Can people in other regions help me to answer the factual question whether this is happening? My understanding of LACRALO is that individuals can participate only partially, not serve as officers or vote on RALO business. Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

6 6

Re: [At-Large] Can individuals participate as equal members ofRALOs?
by carlos aguirre March 5, 2007

March 5, 2007

1 0

Australia on .xxx
by Vittorio Bertola March 2, 2007

March 2, 2007

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/coonan-to-cerf-28feb2007.pdf -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [EURO-Discuss] Preparing for Lisbon: Resolutions from At-Large to the larger community?
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 2, 2007

March 2, 2007

Not sure what you mean there - you mean the Lisbon agenda? If that is what you mean, that will happen - I have provided information for the Lisbon schedule to the conferences team so it should appear shortly. On the teleconference on the 6th ALAC will decide what to talk about at the two scheduled meetings of the committee, and then that will be on the calendar as well. On 02/03/07, Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter(a)medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Dear Nick > > it would be probably helpful to integrate the planned AL-Meeting in Lisbon into the overall agenda on ICANNs website. This would allow also other people to coordinate their calendars. > > Thanlks > > wolfgang > > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

[Fwd: Re: [NA-Discuss] African Region finishes its MoU]
by Wendy Seltzer March 1, 2007

March 1, 2007

With or without RALOs, these are concrete issues of concern to individual Internet users. Should ALAC be writing reports, starting PDPs, or just letting its users' concerns lie? (I vote against the last option...) --Wendy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] African Region finishes its MoU Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:55:49 -0800 (PST) From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Re: "February has turned out to be a good month for the At-Large community" I guess that depends on who you talk to: (1) The registerfly.com debacle has already resulted in 75,000 domain name registrations that weren't processed in January owing to fraud and mismanagement. http://icann.org/correspondence/registerfly-notice-of-breach-21feb07.pdf (2) The Chair of the Registrars Constituency has revealed that ICANN has never implemented registrant data escrow protection by failing to provide a schedule, terms, and format for data escrow. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg06000.html (3) GNSO Councilor Sophia Bekele has reported that two prominent domain name resellers have been denied membership in the GNSO Business Constituency (which they viewed as the necessary conduit that would allow for full participation in the GNSO IDN Working Group). These firms are Regtime of Russia and Karmania Media (Iran). The sordid details are at http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03256.html (4) The NCUC posts a press release describing ICANN as the Net's Word Police. http://www.bloggernews.net/14882 (5) The Eurid Registry (.eu) finds it necessary to create a Registrar Code of Conduct; Eurid will establish a platform to better log the flood of complaints against registrars (this is after having sued 400 registrars for breach of contract and having earlier suspended 74,000 domains). http://www.eurid.eu/images/Documents/CoC/code_of_conduct_en.pdf --- Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> wrote: > For those who don't already know this, the African > ALS Community > finished their MoU with ICANN and it went off to the > Office of the > General Counsel late last week. > > The European ALS community will also be meeting in > Lisbon and are > committed to finishing work on their MoU and Bylaws > there - making > three (!) new RALOs at one ICANN Meeting. > > Congratulations on all the hard work :) February has > turned out to be > a good month for the At-Large community :) > > -- > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > Director, At-Large > ICANN > PO Box 32160 > London N4 2XY > United Kingdom > Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 > mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 > email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org > Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: > nashtonhart(a)mac.com / > Skype: nashtonhart > Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > ____________________________________________________________________________________ 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

4 5