April 2010 - RegistryService

ALAC Position on VeriSign Domain Name Exchange Service request
by Alan Greenberg April 20, 2010

April 20, 2010

The ALAC has now formally endorsed the following statement. Alan Greenberg ----------------------------- The ALAC cautions against approval of this request. Although there may be some benefit to registrars and even to selected registrants for such a service, the potential for negative impact is simply too great. We note the following: - In the absence of knowing what the exchange fee will be, or any ability for ICANN to control it, this service could be new form of Domain Tasting. - This is exacerbated because the RSTEP provision "The registrar's account balance will be debited the exchange fee at the time of the initial exchange occurring within a one year term based upon initial registration date" could be read to imply that if more than one exchange is done in a year, only a single fee for the initial exchange will be charged. - The service effectively introduces the concept of monthly gTLD domain registrations, a practice which does not seem to be forbidden by the various ICANN contracts, but regardless has not been the subject of any policy discussion in recent years. - In the absence of explicit details on how and when reporting will be performed, there is the potential for abuse. - The transient nature of domain names (with a potential life as short as one month) will render UDRP and for new gTLDs, URS proceeding virtually ineffective. At the very least, the UDRP and URS would need to be adjusted to address the concept of a Domain Name Exchange Service. - Although the background of the service cites "Today when a registrant terminates a package of services from a registrar after, for example, an introductory 1 or 3 month period, the registrar is forced to recoup the investment in the associated domain via monetization or the secondary market.", these is no restriction that the service, if approved, be used to address that situation. In fact, further statements in the request imply that Registrars may in fact market it in ways unrelated to the initial scenario. - The used of the term "forced" in the preceding point implies that monetization and the secondary market are only reluctantly used by registrars or those in the domain name industry. In reality, current wisdom seems to imply that monetization and the secondary market generate more revenue that traditional domain registrations and there is no apparent reluctance involved. - Although we have no doubt that the introduction of such a service would result in innovative products and marketing, there is little evidence that the service will be in the public interest, and there is some evidence that it could do harm.

1 0

Summary of Comments Received on Domain Name Exchange proposal in .NET
by Patrick Jones April 20, 2010

April 20, 2010

Summary of Comments received on VeriSign Proposal # 201004, Domain Name Exchange in .NET Between 5 April and 20 April 2010, ICANN received three comments to the registryservice(a)icann.org comment forum on a proposal from VeriSign to offer the Domain Name Exchange service in .NET. The comments are archived at * George Kirikos: http://forum.icann.org/lists/registryservice/msg00033.html * Alan Greenberg: http://forum.icann.org/lists/registryservice/msg00034.html * Marilyn Cade on behalf of the Business Constituency: http://forum.icann.org/lists/registryservice/msg00035.html All three comments cautioned ICANN staff against approval of the request, or alternatively to provide more time to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed service and provide opportunity for a formal public comment period. Analysis George Kirikos wrote on 5 April that the proposal is "functionally no different than reintroducing domain tasting, albeit with a 30-day minimum registration period and no refund." In addition, he noted that the proposal created a new loophole around the deletions policy and that ICANN should deny the proposal, or at a minimum open it up for a formal public comment period. Alan Greenberg submitted his comment on 14 April in his personal capacity but noted that the comment was under consideration as a formal position of ALAC. He noted that the proposal raised potential negative impacts which could lead to a new form of domain tasting. He stated that "the service effectively introduces the concept of monthly gTLD domain registrations, a practice which does not seem to be forbidden by the various ICANN contracts, but regardless has not been the subject of any policy discussion in recent years." Alan also asserted that the proposal did not provide explicit details on how and when reporting will be performed, and the service may raise issues for dispute resolution procedures such as the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS). The Business Constituency echoed concerns from George Kirikos and Alan Greenberg that the proposal may reintroduce domain tasting. "The proposed service reasonably raises concerns that permitting applicants to register a dozen domain names for the price of a single domain name will invite speculators to game the system and use it for domain name abuse....it is also reasonable to ask staff to explore whether VeriSign's new service might be used so excessively that it would cause the same kinds of stability problems." The Business Constituency noted that VeriSign described steps to make the service more transparent, but were skeptical that the proposed remedies would prevent domain name abuse. Next Steps The comments received are being considered by ICANN staff in the evaluation of the proposed service. Further information will be provided at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#201004. -- Patrick -- Patrick L. Jones Senior Manager, Continuity & Risk Management Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: +1 310 301 3861 patrick.jones(a)icann.org patrickjones.tel

1 0

Forward on behalf of Business Constituency: Request regarding VeriSign's proposed registry service
by Patrick Jones April 14, 2010

April 14, 2010

------ Forwarded Message From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:56:35 -0700 To: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones(a)icann.org>, <excomm(a)bizconst.org> Cc: Pat Kane <pkane(a)verisign.com> Subject: Request regarding VeriSign's proposed registry service April 13, 2010 Dear ICANN staff As Chair of the Business Constituency, I am writing regarding VeriSign's RSEP proposal for its proposed new registry service, "Domain Exchange Service" in the .net TLD. On behalf of the BC executive leadership [ExComm], I request that ICANN Staff make the preliminary determination that this proposal requires further study because it could raise significant issues with regards to security and stability and/or competition. The BC leadership's concerns are that, although not intended, the proposal may permit resumption of commercial "domain tasting" activities which have been curbed by the AGP Limits policy. In order to determine the implications of such risks, more time and analysis is needed to ensure such service does not pose significant consequences affecting the stability of the domain name system. As we understand the proposed service submitted by VeriSign, the Domain Name Exchange will permit domain name applicants to "repurpose" or exchange a domain name registration that has significant time remaining until expiration. For the price of a single domain name, applicants will be permitted to register at least 12 domain names a year. As an example of the potential volume of the service offering, if an applicant spent a mere $800 to register 100 domain names, this service would permit the applicant to register 1200 different domain names for that initial investment, over the course of a year. On its face, the increased churn of domain names and ability to monetize names for a short period of time appears to raise red flags for increased domain name abuse. The situation regarding harmful and abusive registrations of domain names associated with brands continues to be a significant burden in both costs to trademark holders and to users in terms of fraud and in other abusive uses of such names. As we all remember, after extensive policy debate and work by the ICANN community, ICANN specifically restricted the ability of registrars to register domain names for five days or less under the AGP to deter abusive practices, such as cyber squatting. Despite the closing of this loophole, business owners still face thousands of instances of new infringements today because cyber squatters are willing to pay a relatively low yearly registration fee for the high quality names, including trademarks that drive traffic. Although VeriSign is permitting applicants to register domain names for 30 days rather than 5 days or less and is not offering refunds, (different from the AGP), the proposed service reasonably raises concerns that permitting applicants to register a dozen domain names for the price of a single domain name will invite speculators to game the system and use it for domain name abuse. Certainly, our concern is whether the new service would facilitate abuse. However, in this case, it is also reasonable to ask staff to explore whether VeriSign's new service might be used so excessively that it would cause the same kinds of stability problems. We do understand that VeriSign's proposal would make changes by modifying the registry record - not by an 'add/delete'. Nonetheless, further exploration is needed to determine levels of use that could generate stability concerns, whether the use was for tasting or for some new form of domain recycling. We appreciate that VeriSign has described steps that it has taken up front to make their service more "transparent" but many of our members do not believe that the steps they have taken thus far are sufficient. None of the proposed remedies VeriSign lists thus far actually prevent the registration of trademarks or prevent domain name abuse at the front end of the service but appear instead to place the entire burden, administrative costs and enforcement costs on businesses and brand holders to deal with potential abuses. The BC has an extensive list of concerns and questions about the service and its proposed remedies that it would be glad to provide to ICANN separately as it begins its analysis of the proposed service. While the service as currently proposed applies only to .net, we may anticipate that if the current proposal is approved, VeriSign will next seek to extend the service to .com, where the potential for abuse and churn in the domain name system are even more pronounced. Given all these concerns, we urge ICANN to provide sufficient time to study this proposal, its affect on the stability of the domain name system, potential to contribute to abuse, and its potential ramifications for all affected stakeholders and to post the proposal for further public comment. On behalf of the BC Executive Committee Marilyn Cade, BC Chair CC: BC ExComm BC List Pat Kane, VeriSign ------ End of Forwarded Message

1 0

VeriSign Domain Name Exchange Service request
by Alan Greenberg April 14, 2010

April 14, 2010

This statement is in response to the VeriSign request for approval of a Domain Name Exchange Service for the .NET Registry. At this point, it is being submitted on my own behalf, but with the explicit support of a number of other At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) members. The comment is currently under discussion by ALAC and will be undergoing a formal vote starting within a few days. Once the five-day vote is completed, I expect that it will be a formal ALAC position. Please acknowledge receipt of this comment. Alan Greenberg ----------------------------- We caution against approval of this request. Although there may be some benefit to registrars and even to selected registrants for such a service, the potential for negative impact is simply too great. We note the following: - In the absence of knowing what the exchange fee will be, or any ability for ICANN to control it, this service could be new form of Domain Tasting. - This is exacerbated because the RSTEP provision "The registrar's account balance will be debited the exchange fee at the time of the initial exchange occurring within a one year term based upon initial registration date" could be read to imply that if more than one exchange is done in a year, only a single fee for the initial exchange will be charged. - The service effectively introduces the concept of monthly gTLD domain registrations, a practice which does not seem to be forbidden by the various ICANN contracts, but regardless has not been the subject of any policy discussion in recent years. - In the absence of explicit details on how and when reporting will be performed, there is the potential for abuse. - The transient nature of domain names (with a potential life as short as one month) will render UDRP and for new gTLDs, URS proceeding virtually ineffective. At the very least, the UDRP and URS would need to be adjusted to address the concept of a Domain Name Exchange Service. - Although the background of the service cites "Today when a registrant terminates a package of services from a registrar after, for example, an introductory 1 or 3 month period, the registrar is forced to recoup the investment in the associated domain via monetization or the secondary market.", these is no restriction that the service, if approved, be used to address that situation. In fact, further statements in the request imply that Registrars may in fact market it in ways unrelated to the initial scenario. - The used of the term "forced" in the preceding point implies that monetization and the secondary market are only reluctantly used by registrars or those in the domain name industry. In reality, current wisdom seems to imply that monetization and the secondary market generate more revenue that traditional domain registrations and there is no apparent reluctance involved. - Although we have no doubt that the introduction of such a service would result in innovative products and marketing, there is little evidence that the service will be in the public interest, and there is some evidence that it could do harm.

1 0

Comments on Domain Name Exchange proposal by VeriSign
by George Kirikos April 5, 2010

April 5, 2010

Hello, In regards by the application by VeriSign's application #201004 to provide a "Domain Name Exchange" service, see: http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#201004 we oppose this proposal. It is functionally no different than reintroducing domain name tasting, albeit with a 30-day minimum registration period and no refund (so, effectively the registration "costs" 1/12th a full registration). While the application is proposed for .net, presumably they wish to do the same for .com at some point, too. We would also oppose it for .com. If VeriSign wants to do something positive, they should consider increasing the maximum registration period from 10 years to say 20 or 30 years. This would be a step forward in protecting long-term registrants, instead of the short-term "flippers" and "tasters" who would flock to VeriSign's proposed "service." In conclusion, this is not a "new service" at all, but instead a way to create new loopholes that route around the deletions policy. ICANN should deny the proposal, or at a minimum open it up for a formal public comment period. Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.leap.com/

1 0