Ross, For some time now within the Domain Tasting Ad Hoc Working Group we have been discussing 3.7.4. As you are aware, there are several members of ICANN Staff that participate in this WG, so they are clearly aware that we have made note of the lack of enforcement pertaining to this clause. Perhaps at the LA session Stacey Burnette's team ought to be asked whether they will or will not be enforcing this clause... I remind everyone that ICANN, in the Joint Project Agreement with the US DOC, agreed to devote "adequate resources to contract enforcement". regards, Danny --- Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
Generally speaking, the "Add Grace Period" (AGP) should be a net positive benefit for users (i.e. if you make a typo when you register a name, your registrar can fix it for you). However, most AGP exploits heavily dilute the public benefit aspect of the AGP. Some have likened AGP exploitation to strip mining in that they consume vast amounts of resources to extract a very small benefit for a highly limited number of actors.
Earlier today, I realized that most current AGP exploits (kiting, tasting and their kin) would seem to be in violation of section 3.4.7 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement as I outlined below to a post to the registrar constituency.
If this is the case, shouldn't we be pushing for proactive enforcement of these types of clauses? I have heard in the past that enforcement is difficult because ICANN staff only have the capability to de-accredit registrars as a penalty, which might be an overly harsh penalty in most cases. On the other hand, I'm aware that some country code registries faced with the similar option have made enforcement penalties a menu of possibilities that the registrar can choose from insttead of facing de-accreditation (i.e. "you can choose to pay the optional $5000 fine and if you do, we'll take de-accreditation off the table"). Wouldn't these types of solutions allow ICANN to start enforcing their contracts now? I mean, there is nothing better than a carefully documented sanctions program that has explicit enforcement hooks in the contracts, but why do we have to wait for that perfect state? It seems to me that ICANN is choosing not to enforce its contracts and in the meantime, the general public is getting worked over by those who choose to ignore the terms of their deal with ICANN.
Copied below is my message to the RC regarding the AGP exploits and the clauses of the contract that should explicitly deal with these issues already.
I'd be interested in other views on ICANN's enforcement of these clauses and whether or not we need to wait for a PDP to conclude before we get action on these issues.
-ross
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [registrars] OUTCOMES REPORT OF THE GNSO AD HOC GROUP ON DOMAIN NAME TASTING Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:13:52 -0400 From: Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> Reply-To: ross@tucows.com Organization: Tucows Inc. CC: Registrars Constituency <registrars@gnso.icann.org> References: <200710031500.l93Exixs012158@pechora2.lax.icann.org>
Robert F. Connelly wrote:
Dear Registrars:
The following is the present draft of the "Outcomes Report". It deals with uses of the AGP other than domain tasting.
<snip>
Isn't this practice...
On the other hand, there are some registrars that have created a cart reserve process utilizing the AGP, that immediately adds the domain at the registry once it gets looked up by the user. This completely mitigates the issue of the domain being otherwise provisioned by another while completing the sales process. If the sales process is not completed, or nearly 5 days passes, the domain is deleted at the registry.
...a violation of provision 3.7.4 [1] of the RAA? No reasonable assurance of payment has been secured in any way for these types of transactions.
Furthermore, couldn't the whole issue of kiting and tasting be addressed through proper enforcement of this clause? I mean, in 99.999% (or whatever the sickly high number is) of tasting transactions, there is no reasonable assurance of payment by a registrant. By definition, the customer knows that they won't have to pay for those transactions. Why do we need a PDP to deal with this when there is clearly sufficient room in the current contract for ICANN to deal with the practice?
I can understand wanting to tighten up the agreement after it has been demonstrated that enforcement has proven difficult or inefficient, but I'm not aware that this clause has *ever* been enforced.
I've requested that the GNSO Chair ask staff for more information regarding their enforcement of this clause and whether or not it is, or could be, an effective hedge against AGP abuse in practice.
-ross
[1] RAA 3.7.4 Registrar shall not activate any Registered Name unless and until it is satisfied that it has received a reasonable assurance of payment of its registration fee. For this purpose, a charge to a credit card, general commercial terms extended to creditworthy customers, or other mechanism providing a similar level of assurance of payment shall be sufficient, provided that the obligation to pay becomes final and non-revocable by the Registered Name Holder upon activation of the registration.
Robert F. Connelly wrote:
Dear Registrars:
The following is the present draft of the "Outcomes Report". It deals with uses of the AGP other than domain tasting.
It is a redlined version and I see that the redlined elements did not survive my cut and paste efforts.
Regards, BobC
*4.3Opinion Polling of Registrars regarding use of AGP
*Following statements within the group that the AGP was sometimes used by registrars for other purposes, not connected to domain tasting or corrections of misspelled names, the question was raised to some registrars to exemplify their uses of the AGP. Below is an excerpted, edited version of the submission provided by the registrar representatives in the group, the complete submission is in Annex __:
The RFI regarding the use of AGP posed three different options to consider in remedying the current abuses in AGP: (1) making the ICANN fee non-refundable;
=== message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/index.html