Hi Evan
I
am pretty much with you in this case. Under registrar's hands at least there
are contract to work with in case of abuse. Other private companies will be
free to do whatever they want in detriment of the public. My suggestion
is - if someone has a viable proposal to add to the registrar contracts, post
it at public comment to allow the debate.
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Alameda Santos 1470 #1407
Tel - +55113266.6253
Mob- +55118181.1464
vanda@uol.com.br
P Before print think about the
Environment
"The information contained
in this message - and attached files - is restricted, and its confidentiality
protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this
message and notify the sender immediately. Please be advised that the improper
use of the aforementioned information will create grounds for legal
action."
"As
informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados
são para uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não
seja o destinatário, favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente.
O uso impróprio das informações desta mensagem será
tratado conforme a legislação em vigor."
-----Mensagem original-----
De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Evan Leibovitch
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 20 de fevereiro de 2008 16:44
Para: Danny Younger
Cc: At-Large Worldwide
Assunto: Re: [At-Large] Question
Hi Danny,
> Does the ALAC intend to launch a
policy-development process on whether and how to restrict GTLD registries
> or registrars or both from engaging in
warehousing of and/or speculating in domain names?
>
>
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-20-2008/0004758927&EDATE=
I am in complete agreement that the warehousing of
domain names is an
issue of public concern; however I am personally not
sure how to
adequately address this in a way that actually serves
the public good.
If a registrar isn't warehousing popular names (or
near-misspellings or
popular names, etc), then someone else is. >From the
public POV, I can't
see how the "wild west" character of .COM
(and possibly other TLDs)
would be any better if all these domains were in the
hands of a private
squatter rather than a registrar.
Did the registrar have special access to search
domains? Only to the
point that it's cheaper for them to register, and they
probably
developed automated tools before private registrants
did. In any case,
Tucows has been around this field for a very long
time; the size and
"quality" of its stable of names owes more
to its early involvement than
the fact it's a registrar.
Would policies that force registrants out of the
domain-warehousing
business help? Not if the result is simply the
sale/auction of domains
to warehouses run by non-registrar squatters.
The bigger problem of public perception and
confidence, at least from my
view, is the treatment of domain names as
chattel/commodity rather than
identification. And simply regulating
registry/registrant ownership of
domains does not change that. I would argue, for
instance, that domain
names should be subject to the same "use it or
lose it" regimen as
trademarks, for much the same reasons. (IMO, parking
does not constitute
"use").
As a counter-example: When one registers a domain with
CIRA (under .ca),
there needs to be some kind of demonstrated link
between the owner and
the requested domain. I'm sure the process isn't
perfect, but it
demonstrates how, at the registry level, abuses can be
minimized through
core allocation policy.
Thus, the problem is at the registry level with .COM
allowing -- indeed
encouraging -- a free-for-all. Rather than
retroactively trying to fix
that, perhaps the answer is to encourage gTLD
alternatives that will
offer the public greater confidence. One would hope
that with a
more-open, more competitive approach to gTLDs the
world's dependence on
.com -- and especially its perception as the 'global
default TLD' -- may
diminish. That would IMO be the biggest blow to
squatters and
warehousers -- registrants and otherwise.
Having said this, I would welcome any process to
produce policy
initiatives that might (realistically) improve the
status quo -- to
advance to the GNSO or anywhere else. If ALAC isn't
interested in your
offer we can certainly accommodate you within NARALO
and advance
resulting policy initiatives within ALAC that way. At
that point our
challenge is finding people who care about the issue,
have the time to
be well grounded in it, and are articulate enough to
advance policy change.
Evan Leibovitch
Chair, NARALO
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org