Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP has posted their Initial Report. You will recall that the PDP was initiated by an ALAC Request for Issues Report. The Public Comment Period is open at http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#pednr-initial-report. It is scheduled to close on August 1, but hopefully it will be extended. An ALAC comment on this report has been drafted. It can be found at https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?at_large_gnso_liaison#pednr. It is also reproduced below for your convenience. The comment will be discussed and possibly endorsed at the 27 July ALAC meeting. The comment follows the expected outcomes outlined in the initial Request for Issues Report and also is in line with the views of the majority of At-Large participants in the Working Group. For PEDNR, the Public Comment process features an easy-to-complete survey. Since this policy development process was initiated by At-Large, it is REALLY important that as many At-Large people as possible complete the survey. PLEASE: - Review the comments below to see the At-Large position; - If you have the time, review the Initial Report; - Complete the short survey (it can be done without reading the full report). The survey is at <http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22AUYRGHCV4>http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22AUYRGHCV4. Alan -------------------------------------- The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) requested the Issues Report which resulted in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP, and it strongly supports the activities of the Working Group. It is essential that the post-expiration "safety net" that existed several years ago be restored. Moreover, the domain industry is sufficiently robust and mature that it can and must provide a level of predictability and security to gTLD domain name holders. In line with the desired outcomes stated in the original Issue Report request, the ALAC supports: 1. Consensus policy requiring that all registrars must allow renewal of domain names for a reasonable amount of time after expiration. 2. Consensus policy explicitly stating the minimum requirements for pre-expiration notices. 3. Consensus policy requiring clarity of how messages will be sent. 4. Consensus policy requiring that WHOIS contents to make it clear that a domain name has expired and has not yet been renewed by the registrant. 5. Consensus policy requiring that notice(s) be sent after expiration. 6. Consensus policy requiring that web sites (port 80) no longer can resolve to the original web site after expiration. 7. Consensus policy requiring that other uses of the domain name (e-mail, FTP, etc.) no longer function after expiration. 8. Consensus policy requiring clarity in the expiration terms and fees offered by registrars. 9. Consensus policy requiring that the Redemption Grace Period be offered by all registries (including future gTLDs) and by all registrars. It is understood that there may be unusual cases where the business models of some registrars may require exceptions to some of these policies. However, the need for such exceptions should not deny the vast majority of registrants a predictable and safe gTLD eco-system. Over and above these minimum requirements, the ALAC supports a move within the registrar community to establish the meaningful and transparent concept of "best practices".
Thanks Alan, Hello all, Please find my ideas on the propose text bellow. All the best Sébastien Bachollet sebastien@bachollet.com +33 6 07 66 89 33
-----Message d'origine----- De : at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg Envoyé : lundi 26 juillet 2010 21:12 À : At-Large Worldwide Objet : [At-Large] Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Importance : Haute
The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP has posted their Initial Report. You will recall that the PDP was initiated by an ALAC Request for Issues Report. The Public Comment Period is open at http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#pednr-initial-report. It is scheduled to close on August 1, but hopefully it will be extended.
An ALAC comment on this report has been drafted. It can be found at https://st.icann.org/gnso- liaison/index.cgi?at_large_gnso_liaison#pednr. It is also reproduced below for your convenience. The comment will be discussed and possibly endorsed at the 27 July ALAC meeting. The comment follows the expected outcomes outlined in the initial Request for Issues Report and also is in line with the views of the majority of At-Large participants in the Working Group.
For PEDNR, the Public Comment process features an easy-to-complete survey. Since this policy development process was initiated by At-Large, it is REALLY important that as many At-Large people as possible complete the survey.
PLEASE:
- Review the comments below to see the At-Large position; - If you have the time, review the Initial Report; - Complete the short survey (it can be done without reading the full report). The survey is at <http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22AUYRGHCV4>http://www.zoomerang.co m/Survey/WEB22AUYRGHCV4.
Alan
--------------------------------------
The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) requested the Issues Report which resulted in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP, and it strongly supports the activities of the Working Group.
It is essential that the post-expiration "safety net" that existed several years ago be restored. Moreover, the domain industry is sufficiently robust and mature that it can and must provide a level of predictability and security to gTLD domain name holders.
In line with the desired outcomes stated in the original Issue Report request, the ALAC supports:
1. Consensus policy requiring that all registrars must allow renewal of domain names for a reasonable amount of time after expiration. 2. Consensus policy explicitly stating the minimum requirements for pre-expiration notices. 3. Consensus policy requiring clarity of how messages will be sent. 4. Consensus policy requiring that WHOIS contents to make it clear that a domain name has expired and has not yet been renewed by the registrant. [SBT] Here I am questioning how this can be gamed. The risk is that the end-user will received proposal for other (registrars, resellers...) and put more question than solution to him. 5. Consensus policy requiring that notice(s) be sent after expiration. 6. Consensus policy requiring that web sites (port 80) no longer can resolve to the original web site after expiration. [SBT] I don't think it is the best way to re-inform an end-user that the DN has expired. It will create more problem than solution. I am in favor of using all the other possibilities (e-mail, postal mail, phone) but not to stop any service. 7. Consensus policy requiring that other uses of the domain name (e-mail, FTP, etc.) no longer function after expiration. [SBT] Idem than 6 - for e-mail more specifically, because we are sure then that he will not be able to received update from the registrar and the registry and will not be able to interact with them. 8. Consensus policy requiring clarity in the expiration terms and fees offered by registrars. 9. Consensus policy requiring that the Redemption Grace Period be offered by all registries (including future gTLDs) and by all registrars.
It is understood that there may be unusual cases where the business models of some registrars may require exceptions to some of these policies. However, the need for such exceptions should not deny the vast majority of registrants a predictable and safe gTLD eco-system.
Over and above these minimum requirements, the ALAC supports a move within the registrar community to establish the meaningful and transparent concept of "best practices". _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Hi Re Sebastien's points - 1) If there have been many notifications via email, phone or letter at least 60 days IN ADVANCE, then it's fine to shut down port 80 on expiration 2) I agree with shutting down all services including email IF there is a requirement for an alternative email address (not at the domain that is being registered) at registration time, and that email address needs to be kept current by the registrant. It certainly would not make sense to send notices or information on expiry to an email address at a domain that has expired! Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible. On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien@bachollet.com> wrote:
Thanks Alan, Hello all, Please find my ideas on the propose text bellow. All the best
Sébastien Bachollet sebastien@bachollet.com +33 6 07 66 89 33
-----Message d'origine----- De : at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg Envoyé : lundi 26 juillet 2010 21:12 À : At-Large Worldwide Objet : [At-Large] Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Importance : Haute
The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP has posted their Initial Report. You will recall that the PDP was initiated by an ALAC Request for Issues Report. The Public Comment Period is open at http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#pednr-initial-report. It is scheduled to close on August 1, but hopefully it will be extended.
An ALAC comment on this report has been drafted. It can be found at https://st.icann.org/gnso- liaison/index.cgi?at_large_gnso_liaison#pednr. It is also reproduced below for your convenience. The comment will be discussed and possibly endorsed at the 27 July ALAC meeting. The comment follows the expected outcomes outlined in the initial Request for Issues Report and also is in line with the views of the majority of At-Large participants in the Working Group.
For PEDNR, the Public Comment process features an easy-to-complete survey. Since this policy development process was initiated by At-Large, it is REALLY important that as many At-Large people as possible complete the survey.
PLEASE:
- Review the comments below to see the At-Large position; - If you have the time, review the Initial Report; - Complete the short survey (it can be done without reading the full report). The survey is at <http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22AUYRGHCV4>http://www.zoomerang.co m/Survey/WEB22AUYRGHCV4.
Alan
--------------------------------------
The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) requested the Issues Report which resulted in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP, and it strongly supports the activities of the Working Group.
It is essential that the post-expiration "safety net" that existed several years ago be restored. Moreover, the domain industry is sufficiently robust and mature that it can and must provide a level of predictability and security to gTLD domain name holders.
In line with the desired outcomes stated in the original Issue Report request, the ALAC supports:
1. Consensus policy requiring that all registrars must allow renewal of domain names for a reasonable amount of time after expiration. 2. Consensus policy explicitly stating the minimum requirements for pre-expiration notices. 3. Consensus policy requiring clarity of how messages will be sent. 4. Consensus policy requiring that WHOIS contents to make it clear that a domain name has expired and has not yet been renewed by the registrant. [SBT] Here I am questioning how this can be gamed. The risk is that the end-user will received proposal for other (registrars, resellers...) and put more question than solution to him. 5. Consensus policy requiring that notice(s) be sent after expiration. 6. Consensus policy requiring that web sites (port 80) no longer can resolve to the original web site after expiration. [SBT] I don't think it is the best way to re-inform an end-user that the DN has expired. It will create more problem than solution. I am in favor of using all the other possibilities (e-mail, postal mail, phone) but not to stop any service. 7. Consensus policy requiring that other uses of the domain name (e-mail, FTP, etc.) no longer function after expiration. [SBT] Idem than 6 - for e-mail more specifically, because we are sure then that he will not be able to received update from the registrar and the registry and will not be able to interact with them. 8. Consensus policy requiring clarity in the expiration terms and fees offered by registrars. 9. Consensus policy requiring that the Redemption Grace Period be offered by all registries (including future gTLDs) and by all registrars.
It is understood that there may be unusual cases where the business models of some registrars may require exceptions to some of these policies. However, the need for such exceptions should not deny the vast majority of registrants a predictable and safe gTLD eco-system.
Over and above these minimum requirements, the ALAC supports a move within the registrar community to establish the meaningful and transparent concept of "best practices". _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
1) If there have been many notifications via email, phone or letter at least 60 days IN ADVANCE, then it's fine to shut down port 80 on expiration
In my experience there's two reasons that domains accidentally expire. One is that the registrant's contact info goes stale, the other is that the domain was registered through an intermediary that's gone out of business. For example, one of our local churches registered its domain ten years ago through a Tucows reseller. Earlier this year (two weeks before Easter), it expired. The contact was the secretary at the time it was registered, who hasn't worked there for years, and the reseller disappeared with neither the church nor Tucows able to find him. They'd probably been emailing contact validation notices for years, all of which bounced, but nobody at the church knew to look for them. Since Tucows' managers happen to know me personally, they were willing to move the church's domain to my reseller account so I could renew it, but otherwise they'd have been out of luck. If you want your domains to be stable, you need stable contact info including a stable e-mail address, but I don't know any way to make that happen for people who aren't inclined to do it anyway. Requiring multiple email addresses doesn't help, since they'll just use a throwaway free address. Requiring the address be at a domain other then the registered one doesn't really help; I've had my iecc.com domain since 1993, the contact address is hostmaster@iecc.com, which is more stable than any other domain I might use. Other than ensuring that the renewal rules are straightforward and consistent, I'm not sure this is a problem we can or should try to solve. If people use a low-cost low-service registrar, it's not reasonable to expect them to go to great effort to verify that contact info still works, or to track down someone who's mail is bouncing. R's, John
John, While I agree with you that there is a couple other things to consider. The ICANN agreement requires the contact information to be valid. If the contact information is not valid, then the registrant is in violation of that agreement and the domain name is subject to termination. The two issues that I have is when a registrar ignores the requirement to have accurate information, and two the registrar's profit from the resale of the terminated domains (ie. wait listing, etc) or charging significant amounts of money 'redeem' the domain name.
In my experience there's two reasons that domains accidentally expire. One is that the registrant's contact info goes stale, the other is that the domain was registered through an intermediary that's gone out of business.
For example, one of our local churches registered its domain ten years ago through a Tucows reseller. Earlier this year (two weeks before Easter), it expired. The contact was the secretary at the time it was registered, who hasn't worked there for years, and the reseller disappeared with neither the church nor Tucows able to find him. They'd probably been emailing contact validation notices for years, all of which bounced, but nobody at the church knew to look for them. Since Tucows' managers happen to know me personally, they were willing to move the church's domain to my reseller account so I could renew it, but otherwise they'd have been out of luck.
If you want your domains to be stable, you need stable contact info including a stable e-mail address, but I don't know any way to make that happen for people who aren't inclined to do it anyway. Requiring multiple email addresses doesn't help, since they'll just use a throwaway free address. Requiring the address be at a domain other then the registered one doesn't really help; I've had my iecc.com domain since 1993, the contact address is hostmaster@iecc.com, which is more stable than any other domain I might use.
Other than ensuring that the renewal rules are straightforward and consistent, I'm not sure this is a problem we can or should try to solve. If people use a low-cost low-service registrar, it's not reasonable to expect them to go to great effort to verify that contact info still works, or to track down someone who's mail is bouncing.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Hi, Am 28.07.2010 06:34, schrieb Bill Silverstein:
The two issues that I have is when a registrar ignores the requirement to have accurate information, and two the registrar's profit from the resale of the terminated domains (ie. wait listing, etc) or charging significant amounts of money 'redeem' the domain name.
Maybe a short list of rules for registrants could help, with the registrars being obliged to present these rules during the registration process and to send them by mail / e-mail after the registration. I can think of some few and simple items, starting like "if you want to enjoy your domain name for more than just a year, please consider taking care of your contact information. Here is how you keep it updated: ..." Then make it mandatory for the registrars to provide an online service where their customers can easily check and update their contact information. /Manuel -- Regards Manuel Schneider Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Wikimedia CH - Association for the advancement of free knowledge www.wikimedia.ch
Actually, under 3.7.7.2, a domain name could be terminated on day 1 if the information provided in the whois is not accurate. Of course, unless the registrar wants to take the domain name, it is almost impossible to get them to enforce that provision.
Hi,
Am 28.07.2010 06:34, schrieb Bill Silverstein:
The two issues that I have is when a registrar ignores the requirement to have accurate information, and two the registrar's profit from the resale of the terminated domains (ie. wait listing, etc) or charging significant amounts of money 'redeem' the domain name.
Maybe a short list of rules for registrants could help, with the registrars being obliged to present these rules during the registration process and to send them by mail / e-mail after the registration.
I can think of some few and simple items, starting like "if you want to enjoy your domain name for more than just a year, please consider taking care of your contact information. Here is how you keep it updated: ..."
Then make it mandatory for the registrars to provide an online service where their customers can easily check and update their contact information.
/Manuel -- Regards Manuel Schneider
Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Wikimedia CH - Association for the advancement of free knowledge www.wikimedia.ch
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
While I agree with you that there is a couple other things to consider. The ICANN agreement requires the contact information to be valid. If the contact information is not valid, then the registrant is in violation of that agreement and the domain name is subject to termination.
In the case I mentioned, everything except the e-mail address was correct. It seems a bit extreme to terminate a domain when 95% of the info is correct and there's no reason to think the bad address was deliberate. I don't see any obviously correct solution to this problem. I'd like to say that if the email bounces, the registrar has to try to contact the registrant using the other info to tell them to fix it, but that has its own problems. Due to all the fake renewal notices from places like DRoA, the registrant is as likely as not to throw away mailed notices, and registrars would argue that for $8/yr, they can't afford to send mail nor to deal with the phone calls. R's, John
At 28/07/2010 07:26 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
I don't see any obviously correct solution to this problem. I'd like to say that if the email bounces, the registrar has to try to contact the registrant using the other info to tell them to fix it, but that has its own problems. Due to all the fake renewal notices from places like DRoA, the registrant is as likely as not to throw away mailed notices, and registrars would argue that for $8/yr, they can't afford to send mail nor to deal with the phone calls.
For a medium-large registrar who may send out tens or hundreds of thousands of expiration warning messages per day, bounce processing and analysis is not really practical. But the concept of telephoning or even sending paper mail is not necessarily unrealistic. Yes, there may be a cost involved (although not particularly large for automated voice messages within much of the developed world). How relevant that cost is depends on what percentage of domain names get to the point of expiring and still not renewed, saw a week or two later). If that is only 1% of all renewals, then a $1.00 cost per call or letter averages out to only $0.01 per domain name registration. Unfortunately, only registrars know exactly what percentage of domains expire and the renewal pattern after expiration, and they are not sharing this data. Alan
For a medium-large registrar who may send out tens or hundreds of thousands of expiration warning messages per day, bounce processing and analysis is not really practical.
Actually, automated bounce processing is a pretty well solved problem, since we've had to figure out how to do it to manage mailing lists. The question is what to do once you've figured out that the address is bouncing. There's also the problem of abandoned addresses that don't bounce, but that nobody reads.
But the concept of telephoning or even sending paper mail is not necessarily unrealistic. Yes, there may be a cost involved (although not particularly large for automated voice messages within much of the developed world). How relevant that cost is depends on what percentage of domain names get to the point of expiring and still not renewed, saw a week or two later).
I agree that it's probably pretty small. It's also my impression that the majority of abandoned domains are abandoned deliberately so only a small fraction of the hard to contact domains even care. At some point, I think it's reasonable to expect people who want their domains to stick around to make a minimal effort to keep them around. What I don't know is how hard it would be to educate people that there's a reason for the WHOIS contacts, and "I don't like spam" doesn't override that. R's, John
At 28/07/2010 02:07 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
For a medium-large registrar who may send out tens or hundreds of thousands of expiration warning messages per day, bounce processing and analysis is not really practical.
Actually, automated bounce processing is a pretty well solved problem, since we've had to figure out how to do it to manage mailing lists. The question is what to do once you've figured out that the address is bouncing. There's also the problem of abandoned addresses that don't bounce, but that nobody reads.
Sorry, my shorthand "bounce processing and analysis" was meant to cover the entire process.
But the concept of telephoning or even sending paper mail is not necessarily unrealistic. Yes, there may be a cost involved (although not particularly large for automated voice messages within much of the developed world). How relevant that cost is depends on what percentage of domain names get to the point of expiring and still not renewed, saw a week or two later).
I agree that it's probably pretty small. It's also my impression that the majority of abandoned domains are abandoned deliberately so only a small fraction of the hard to contact domains even care.
At some point, I think it's reasonable to expect people who want their domains to stick around to make a minimal effort to keep them around. What I don't know is how hard it would be to educate people that there's a reason for the WHOIS contacts, and "I don't like spam" doesn't override that.
Education and "alerts" at various time in the process are part of what we envision. But the cessation of working-as-usual is probably the only thing that may catch some people's attention. Today, it is quite possible that a domain (or aspects of it) can continue working for many weeks after expiration, up until the moment it is deleted or irrevocably purchased or auctioned. Alan
Education and "alerts" at various time in the process are part of what we envision. But the cessation of working-as-usual is probably the only thing that may catch some people's attention. Today, it is quite possible that a domain (or aspects of it) can continue working for many weeks after expiration, up until the moment it is deleted or irrevocably purchased or auctioned.
I agree that the domain should stop working, no name service at all, the moment it expires, since that's the most reliable way to get people's attention. R's, John
Education and "alerts" at various time in the process are part of what we envision. But the cessation of working-as-usual is probably the only thing that may catch some people's attention. Today, it is quite possible that a domain (or aspects of it) can continue working for many weeks after expiration, up until the moment it is deleted or irrevocably purchased or auctioned.
I agree that the domain should stop working, no name service at all, the moment it expires, since that's the most reliable way to get people's attention.
R's, John It is a most effective and tested means. It has worked for utilities companies for years. The customer coming home to find that the power has been turned off quickly gets the customer's attention.
Education? Isn't it obvious, if you don't pay our renewal, your domain will stop working?
On 07/28/2010 12:21 PM, Bill Silverstein wrote:
I agree that the domain should stop working, no name service at all, the moment it expires, since that's the most reliable way to get people's attention. ...
It is a most effective and tested means. It has worked for utilities companies for years. The customer coming home to find that the power has been turned off quickly gets the customer's attention.
You must live in a benign climate. Doing that in places with harsh climates at certain times of year could bring civil penalties or even jail time. Moving to a larger scope, I am amused at the degree of conflation of DNS with the world wide web. Domain names are used quite frequently for things that have nothing to do with HTTP/HTTPS based services. Indeed sometimes DNS is used simply to convey data - like public keys, RFID tag meanings, or whether somerhing is on someone's black list. By-the-way, the best cure to expiration is to go back and review one simple question: Q. Why did ICANN create a ten year limit on name registrations in the first place? A. Because. Yes simply "because". There was no decision, no debate, no rationale, no criteria. It was imposed by fiat. There is no particular reason why domain names can't be acquired permanently, or at least as long as the TLD exists. That's what I will do in my .ewe TLD - one fee gets you a name in perpetuity. (The business model is to obtain revenue for management services on the name, not from the ICANN model of yearly rent for the name. -- See http://eweregistry.cavebear.com/ and http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000159.html ) If names don't expire than we don't need to worry about "post-expiration domain name recovery". Given that we are entering a world in which a consequential part of a person's life work might be on the net, the it makes sense for domain names to have very long lives - at least as long, or longer, than the duration of the copyright in any works that might be referenced via that domain name. --karl--
On 28 July 2010 17:31, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
Q. Why did ICANN create a ten year limit on name registrations in the first place?
A. Because. Yes simply "because". There was no decision, no debate, no rationale, no criteria. It was imposed by fiat.
There is no particular reason why domain names can't be acquired permanently, or at least as long as the TLD exists.
That's what I will do in my .ewe TLD - one fee gets you a name in perpetuity. (The business model is to obtain revenue for management services on the name, not from the ICANN model of yearly rent for the name. -- See http://eweregistry.cavebear.com/ and http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000159.html )
If names don't expire than we don't need to worry about "post-expiration domain name recovery".
You should be welcome to any registry/registrar business model you want, but under *its* current model ICANN charges/collects an annual fee per name. If you want to sell a one-price "forever" name, I see no reason to stop you... so long as you're prepared to pay ICANN's fee, in perpetuity and whatever the rate, on the owners' behalfs. If ICANN stops receiving that fee then the domains can still expire (or at least be deactivated), regardless of what you promise. Changing the ICANN business model of an annual fee per name is not something that I could support. - Evan
On 07/28/2010 02:57 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 28 July 2010 17:31, Karl Auerbach<karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
Changing the ICANN business model of an annual fee per name is not something that I could support.
Neither I nor .ewe will pay ransom for the privilege of engaging in a lawful business. ICANN, and those incumbent vendors who participate in ICANN, ought to be wary that such demands might eventually bring legal action on the grounds of a combination, contract, or conspiracy to restrain trade. We like to whine about how it would be bad if Comcast or AT&T or some other large provider were to demand money for people to view certain web sites or transport certain kinds of traffic. And we dump on China for filtering the net for their own reasons. Yet we seem to be engaged in intellectual dissonance when we say that ICANN can demand money for people to engage in lawful internet business. --karl--
Neither I nor .ewe will pay ransom for the privilege of engaging in a lawful business.
That's fine. Heck, you can run .ewe right now. Just set up a few DNS servers and start adding records. I assume, of course, that you don't expect any of the incumbent DNS roots to include your domain. Why should they? They spend quite a lot of money to run their servers, so they get to decide what they serve. R's, John
On 07/28/2010 03:36 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Neither I nor .ewe will pay ransom for the privilege of engaging in a lawful business.
That's fine. Heck, you can run .ewe right now. Just set up a few DNS servers and start adding records.
I assume, of course, that you don't expect any of the incumbent DNS roots to include your domain. Why should they? They spend quite a lot of money to run their servers, so they get to decide what they serve.
Yes, I can set up new servers. And in fact I have been using IOD's .web and my .ewe TLD for a decade now via servers that extend the ICANN/NTIA/Verisign root zone. The point, however, as you clearly recognize - and I believe that we all recognize - is that as a practical matter there is presently only one real marketplace for domain names. (There may also be sub markets - as in .com as is being fought in the CFIT case.) ICANN can't pretend that its management of everything from prices to products to vendors is excused because it is engaging in "technical coordination". The rules that ICANN imposes have do not promote any technical goals, much less are they grounded in any technical necessity. ICANN stand astride the one practical DNS marketplace in much the same way John D. Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Company stood astride oil refining in 1880. That practical dominance, under certain conditions, can give rise to restraint of trade issues, whether under the laws of the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia, or elsewhere. Moreover, ICANN, via things like its bull against competition against ICANN - ICANN's ICP 3 - declares war not merely on any enterprise that tries to operate outside the ICANN system but upon competition itself. Take a look at "ICANN and Antitrust" by Froomkin and Lemley - http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%... --karl--
Incontestable in the first part and just sensible for the second. +1 Carlton Samuels ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Bill Silverstein <icann-list@sorehands.com
wrote:
John, While I agree with you that there is a couple other things to consider. The ICANN agreement requires the contact information to be valid. If the contact information is not valid, then the registrant is in violation of that agreement and the domain name is subject to termination.
The two issues that I have is when a registrar ignores the requirement to have accurate information, and two the registrar's profit from the resale of the terminated domains (ie. wait listing, etc) or charging significant amounts of money 'redeem' the domain name.
In my experience there's two reasons that domains accidentally expire. One is that the registrant's contact info goes stale, the other is that the domain was registered through an intermediary that's gone out of business.
For example, one of our local churches registered its domain ten years
ago
through a Tucows reseller. Earlier this year (two weeks before Easter), it expired. The contact was the secretary at the time it was registered, who hasn't worked there for years, and the reseller disappeared with neither the church nor Tucows able to find him. They'd probably been emailing contact validation notices for years, all of which bounced, but nobody at the church knew to look for them. Since Tucows' managers happen to know me personally, they were willing to move the church's domain to my reseller account so I could renew it, but otherwise they'd have been out of luck.
If you want your domains to be stable, you need stable contact info including a stable e-mail address, but I don't know any way to make that happen for people who aren't inclined to do it anyway. Requiring multiple email addresses doesn't help, since they'll just use a throwaway free address. Requiring the address be at a domain other then the registered one doesn't really help; I've had my iecc.com domain since 1993, the contact address is hostmaster@iecc.com, which is more stable than any other domain I might use.
Other than ensuring that the renewal rules are straightforward and consistent, I'm not sure this is a problem we can or should try to solve. If people use a low-cost low-service registrar, it's not reasonable to expect them to go to great effort to verify that contact info still works, or to track down someone who's mail is bouncing.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I came across this most interesting company: https://www.instra.com/en/domain-names/domain-trustee-services They offer "domain trustee" services. If you want to register in a domain like .BR which restricts registrations to entities in the country, they'll provide a proxy registration in the country so you can evade the rules. I realize that the rules of ccTLDs are outside ICANN's remit, but since we seem to be opining about ccTLDs anyway this week, what do you think? If anyone is associated with one of the 21 ccTLD registries they're fooling, I'd be particularly interested in hearing from you. R's, John
On 17 Aug 2010, at 20:41, John R. Levine wrote:
If anyone is associated with one of the 21 ccTLD registries they're fooling, I'd be particularly interested in hearing from you.
In the case of .lu, the requirement to have a representative in the country have been dropped several months ago, for exactly that reason: it is useless and can easily be worked around. We very much prefer to have a policy of high prices for the domain name registrations, to make the TLD unattractive for spammers/scammers/domainers and other small time crooks. Works outstandingly well. The registry operator is a not for profit. Hence, selling volumes to make loads of money is not a business target. Patrick Vande Walle
On 17 Aug 2010, at 21:23, John R. Levine wrote:
We very much prefer to have a policy of high prices for the domain name registrations, ... The registry operator is a not for profit.
What does it do with all the extra money from the high priced registrations?
Actually, there not so much extra money. The operational costs are quite high because there is no economies of scale as in major TLDs. Everything is run in-house, and not subcontracted to major backend operators. For example, implementing DNSSEC for 80,000 or one million domains is quite similar in cost Patrick
If I go set up a company in Brazil, or anywhere else, and it's legal and all the fees are paid, then I'm not "fooling" anyone when I ask for a domain name there. if the registration rules permit an existing company to register domain names, or indeed to do any other business in Brazil, then why shouldn't people do it? After all, the same kind of thing is done routinely for trademarks, patents, mining claims, etc. etc. It's as old as the law. Don't treat these "rules" as some kind of Golden Law. I've spent a lot of time in this area and never once have I seen a decent justification for restricting registration to residents only, businesses only, businesses with licenses only, businesses with an account with the local telecom only, people who pass a language test only, people who use a particular ISP only -- etc. etc. Right now the restrictive TLDs in Europe are twisting themselves in knots because -- lo and behold -- the EU law says that you can't restrict trade between member nations, which is exactly what restrictive ccTLDs do. Seems to me there's a lot of finger pointing/shaking going on here without any exploration of why the rules serve anyone's purpose in the first place. On Aug 17, 2010, at 2:41 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
I came across this most interesting company:
https://www.instra.com/en/domain-names/domain-trustee-services
They offer "domain trustee" services. If you want to register in a domain like .BR which restricts registrations to entities in the country, they'll provide a proxy registration in the country so you can evade the rules.
I realize that the rules of ccTLDs are outside ICANN's remit, but since we seem to be opining about ccTLDs anyway this week, what do you think?
If anyone is associated with one of the 21 ccTLD registries they're fooling, I'd be particularly interested in hearing from you.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
If I go set up a company in Brazil, or anywhere else, and it's legal and all the fees are paid, then I'm not "fooling" anyone when I ask for a domain name there. if the registration rules permit an existing company to register domain names, or indeed to do any other business in Brazil, then why shouldn't people do it? After all, the same kind of thing is done routinely for trademarks, patents, mining claims, etc. etc. It's as old as the law.
This isn't for people who've set up a company in Brazil. It's for people who have no presence in Brazil (or whatever country) at all.
I've spent a lot of time in this area and never once have I seen a decent justification for restricting registration to residents only, businesses only, businesses with licenses only, businesses with an account with the local telecom only, people who pass a language test only, people who use a particular ISP only -- etc. etc.
So, if I understand you properly, we should just ignore any rules that we don't like? R's, John
If they want to be credible, they might start from getting the spelling of the countries right. R.
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of John R. Levine Sent: Tuesday, 17 August 2010 20:42 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Per country fake registration
I came across this most interesting company:
https://www.instra.com/en/domain-names/domain-trustee-services
They offer "domain trustee" services. If you want to register in a domain like .BR which restricts registrations to entities in the country, they'll provide a proxy registration in the country so you can evade the rules.
I realize that the rules of ccTLDs are outside ICANN's remit, but since we seem to be opining about ccTLDs anyway this week, what do you think?
If anyone is associated with one of the 21 ccTLD registries they're fooling, I'd be particularly interested in hearing from you.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar ge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 1:41 PM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I came across this most interesting company:
https://www.instra.com/en/domain-names/domain-trustee-services
They are not the only ones. In a different thread I reported another company that is an ICANN accredited registrar that have a similar biz model, the company listed as the accredited registrar seems that it has been incorporated in the US but with a snail address that belongs to a SkyBox service and the phone is a VoIP number that can ring anywhere in the world, well this one actually rings in a southern pacific country. The company does not seem to be incorporated everywhere but has "representatives" all around the world that happen to be a ring of IP and trademark lawyers that offer bundled services to register your domain, trademark, etc, and even offer hosting services !!! While everything has been put together as a legit operation, there are some issues like offering multi-year registrations paid in advance for ccTLDs that only offer yearly (some free) registrations, so if they go belly up the registrant will just get screwed, they also claim to use UDRP where the ccTLD does not and have no acct framework or agreement of any kind with ICANN. Cheers Jorge
At 27/07/2010 02:50 AM, Sébastien Bachollet wrote:
Thanks Alan, Hello all, Please find my ideas on the propose text bellow. All the best
Sébastien Bachollet sebastien@bachollet.com +33 6 07 66 89 33
-----Message d'origine----- De : at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg Envoyé : lundi 26 juillet 2010 21:12 À : At-Large Worldwide Objet : [At-Large] Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Importance : Haute
The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP has posted their Initial Report. You will recall that the PDP was initiated by an ALAC Request for Issues Report. The Public Comment Period is open at http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#pednr-initial-report. It is scheduled to close on August 1, but hopefully it will be extended.
An ALAC comment on this report has been drafted. It can be found at https://st.icann.org/gnso- liaison/index.cgi?at_large_gnso_liaison#pednr. It is also reproduced below for your convenience. The comment will be discussed and possibly endorsed at the 27 July ALAC meeting. The comment follows the expected outcomes outlined in the initial Request for Issues Report and also is in line with the views of the majority of At-Large participants in the Working Group.
For PEDNR, the Public Comment process features an easy-to-complete survey. Since this policy development process was initiated by At-Large, it is REALLY important that as many At-Large people as possible complete the survey.
PLEASE:
- Review the comments below to see the At-Large position; - If you have the time, review the Initial Report; - Complete the short survey (it can be done without reading the full report). The survey is at <http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22AUYRGHCV4>http://www.zoomerang.co m/Survey/WEB22AUYRGHCV4.
Alan
--------------------------------------
The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) requested the Issues Report which resulted in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP, and it strongly supports the activities of the Working Group.
It is essential that the post-expiration "safety net" that existed several years ago be restored. Moreover, the domain industry is sufficiently robust and mature that it can and must provide a level of predictability and security to gTLD domain name holders.
In line with the desired outcomes stated in the original Issue Report request, the ALAC supports:
1. Consensus policy requiring that all registrars must allow renewal of domain names for a reasonable amount of time after expiration. 2. Consensus policy explicitly stating the minimum requirements for pre-expiration notices. 3. Consensus policy requiring clarity of how messages will be sent. 4. Consensus policy requiring that WHOIS contents to make it clear that a domain name has expired and has not yet been renewed by the registrant. [SBT] Here I am questioning how this can be gamed. The risk is that the end-user will received proposal for other (registrars, resellers...) and put more question than solution to him.
That is slamming and needs to be dealt with separately. The problem here is that if you have a typical gTLD and it expires, if you go to WHOIS, it says that it has been renewed for a year, because the date is reflecting just the status between the registry and registrar, and the registry automatically renews for a year. An innocent registrant looks at that and sees that there is no problem, since the domain is renewed. But it hasn't been! We are suggesting a new field that makes it clear that the registrant has not renewed.
5. Consensus policy requiring that notice(s) be sent after expiration. 6. Consensus policy requiring that web sites (port 80) no longer can resolve to the original web site after expiration. [SBT] I don't think it is the best way to re-inform an end-user that the DN has expired. It will create more problem than solution. I am in favor of using all the other possibilities (e-mail, postal mail, phone) but not to stop any service.
This is what virtually every registrar does now. And it is what the registry does if the domain enters the RGP status. It stops a "bad player" from deliberately keep the domain going so that the registrant is not aware of the expiration. For business models where this is not acceptable, exceptions will be allowed.
7. Consensus policy requiring that other uses of the domain name (e-mail, FTP, etc.) no longer function after expiration. [SBT] Idem than 6 - for e-mail more specifically, because we are sure then that he will not be able to received update from the registrar and the registry and will not be able to interact with them.
True, but chances are that e-mail is not effective anyway since all previous messages were being ignored. The alternative is to keep the mail going until the domain disappears with NO chance of getting it back. Some of us are also suggesting a warning if the only e-mail address that they provide uses the domain in question that it may not work for post-expiration messages. This is also what a large number of registrars do now. If the domain is not hosted on the registrars own DNS, they have no choice but to take it over completely and mail stops.
8. Consensus policy requiring clarity in the expiration terms and fees offered by registrars. 9. Consensus policy requiring that the Redemption Grace Period be offered by all registries (including future gTLDs) and by all registrars.
It is understood that there may be unusual cases where the business models of some registrars may require exceptions to some of these policies. However, the need for such exceptions should not deny the vast majority of registrants a predictable and safe gTLD eco-system.
Over and above these minimum requirements, the ALAC supports a move within the registrar community to establish the meaningful and transparent concept of "best practices". _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (13)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Antony Van Couvering -
Bill Silverstein -
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jacqueline Morris -
John R. Levine -
Jorge Amodio -
Karl Auerbach -
Manuel Schneider -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Roberto Gaetano -
Sébastien Bachollet