NA-Discuss

Download

na-discuss@icann.org

April 2012

16 participants
32 discussions

Re: [NA-Discuss] "Chicken and Egg" Problem
by Alan Greenberg April 2, 2012

April 2, 2012

Indeed, and if one believes the that the number of domain names used for spam and phishing and monetization is as large as some people imply, imagine the liability to ICANN of we could eliminate all of that (as clearly some people wish). The way ahead is fraught with problems. Alan At 02/04/2012 02:48 PM, gbruen(a)knujon.com wrote: >I'm concerned about the very specific influence this creates if a >registrar decides to drop all of their extra accreditations at once, >pulling up to 4% ICANN's budget out from under the organization. > >It is a Sword of Damocles > >http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles > > >Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > >-----Original Message----- >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:40:02 >To: Eduardo Diaz<eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com>; Garth Bruen at Knujon >com<gbruen(a)knujon.com> >Cc: LACRALO discussion list<lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; ><na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] "Chicken and Egg" Problem > >I doubt that Moniker does this as a benevolent way to fund ICANN. >Multiple accreditations allow them (perhaps among other things) them >to pick up more dropped names quickly, overcoming the rules some >registries have in place regarding the number (or rate) of pickups of >dropped names. My understanding is that some registries (.org in >particular) place additional limits on drop-catching, but I don't >recall the details. > >Alan > >At 02/04/2012 01:25 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote: > >Wow! This is very interesting. Why somebody will pay ICANN $436k for a no > >return on investment? > > > >-ed > > > >On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com < > >gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > > > > > (Apologies for list cross-posts) > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > Recent discussions with ICANN compliance have revealed what > appears to be a > > > new standard (or perhaps it was always the standard) for triggering > > > Registrar contract obligations. According to compliance, certain contract > > > obligations (like posting of policies, terms, pricing and > WHOIS) cannot be > > > enforced until the Registrar actually sponsors domain names. > > > > > > This came up because several new Registrars did not appear to have these > > > basic components on their websites (some had no website at > all). Compliance > > > stated the obligations could not be enforced because the Registrars in > > > question had no domains yet. > > > > > > In my view this presents a number of problems. The first is > that Registrars > > > should demonstrate their ability and willingness to provide required > > > services before sponsoring domain names. The second is that it > would seem a > > > Registrar could be non-transparent to their first customer, hence > > > "chicken-and-egg." Signing of the contract should the trigger these > > > requirements not the presence of domain names. > > > > > > One additional problem is a little more complex. A Registrar called > > > Nameescape.com LLC has no operational website, this has been the case for > > > several years and possibly since they were accredited. This > Registrar is a > > > Moniker shell company, who already has 109 superfluous accreditations. At > > > one point the cartels would at least attempt to appear > independent, now it > > > seems there is no long even a pretense and accreditations can > simply become > > > "placeholders." This isn't a simple problem since these additional > > > accreditations allow Moniker to add $436,000 to ICANN's coffers > each year, > > > and now it appears they don't have to pretend to actually want to sell > > > domain names. It's something to think about as we continue to > discuss COI. > > > > > > Thanks, Garth > > > > > > ------------------------------------- > > > > > > Garth Bruen > > > gbruen(a)knujon.com > > > > > > 617-947-3805 > > > http://www.knujon.com > > > http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 > > > The Death of the Internet: How It May Happen and How It Can Be Stopped, > > > ISBN:1118062418 > > > Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 > > > Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ > > > Twitter: @Knujon > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > > > > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > >-- > >NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only > >for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If > >you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately > >by e-mail, and delete the original message. > >------ > >NA-Discuss mailing list > >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > >------

2 1

"Chicken and Egg" Problem
by Garth Bruen at Knujon.com April 2, 2012

April 2, 2012

(Apologies for list cross-posts) Folks, Recent discussions with ICANN compliance have revealed what appears to be a new standard (or perhaps it was always the standard) for triggering Registrar contract obligations. According to compliance, certain contract obligations (like posting of policies, terms, pricing and WHOIS) cannot be enforced until the Registrar actually sponsors domain names. This came up because several new Registrars did not appear to have these basic components on their websites (some had no website at all). Compliance stated the obligations could not be enforced because the Registrars in question had no domains yet. In my view this presents a number of problems. The first is that Registrars should demonstrate their ability and willingness to provide required services before sponsoring domain names. The second is that it would seem a Registrar could be non-transparent to their first customer, hence "chicken-and-egg." Signing of the contract should the trigger these requirements not the presence of domain names. One additional problem is a little more complex. A Registrar called Nameescape.com LLC has no operational website, this has been the case for several years and possibly since they were accredited. This Registrar is a Moniker shell company, who already has 109 superfluous accreditations. At one point the cartels would at least attempt to appear independent, now it seems there is no long even a pretense and accreditations can simply become "placeholders." This isn't a simple problem since these additional accreditations allow Moniker to add $436,000 to ICANN's coffers each year, and now it appears they don't have to pretend to actually want to sell domain names. It's something to think about as we continue to discuss COI. Thanks, Garth ------------------------------------- Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com 617-947-3805 http://www.knujon.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 The Death of the Internet: How It May Happen and How It Can Be Stopped, ISBN:1118062418 Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ Twitter: @Knujon

3 2