Re: [At-Large] ALAC Digest, Vol 11, Issue 54
It's a trademark suit, but among the allegations is that they used tasting and kiting (repeated 4.999 day registrations) to hide their identity.
I'm kind of surprised that the suit didn't name ICANN as an additional defendant. I did a short talk on tasting and kiting at MAAWG last month, and just from the stats that ICANN publishes, I pointed out these registars for their glaringly abusive behavior, registering millions of domains and refunding all but a few thousand of them. There's no question that ICANN knows what they've been doing.
I thought about that too. The problem is that ICANN is more a regulatory body than a party. In theory (though it is not done) a registrar can be sanctioned for not following the terms of the contract. Certain people at ICANN believes that the only sanction available is to terminate the registrar's contract, and the problem with that is that it could credit a registerfly situation. I believe that ICANN has the legal ability ability suspend the ability of a registrar to register new domain names -- which may be the big stick needed to get the registrar to clean up its act.
On 30-Nov-07, at 12:23 PM, Bill Silverstein wrote:
I believe that ICANN has the legal ability ability suspend the ability of a registrar to register new domain names -- which may be the big stick needed to get the registrar to clean up its act.
Other registries (country codes specifically) have dealt with the issue in past situations by using optional monetary fines in lieu of de-accreditation. It plays like this. Registrar does something "bad". Registry takes notice and tells Registrar that their contract will be termined, except and unless they pay an optional fine. Usually the fine is substantial enough to make it moderately painful for the registrar, but not substantial enough that deaccreditation is the preferable option. I too believe that ICANN has more tools available to them than they are willing to admit, or assume. Not sure which. -ross
I thought about that too. The problem is that ICANN is more a regulatory body than a party. In theory (though it is not done) a registrar can be sanctioned for not following the terms of the contract. Certain people at ICANN believes that the only sanction available is to terminate the registrar's contract, and the problem with that is that it could create a registerfly situation.
Even if that's true, it's entirely ICANN's fault for failing to enforce the escrow language that has been in the RAA for seven years. And it should be moot now since registrars are all supposed to be escrowing with Iron Mountain. If you look at ICANN's history, it is unfortunately clear that lawsuits get ICANN's attention like nothing else, so some sort of suit in this area is inevitable. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
participants (3)
-
Bill Silverstein -
John L -
Ross Rader