For Sale ICANN Insider Hoarding Scandal

[dotsofdomains]

Let's call it what it is: the ICANN Insider Hoarding Scandal .

ICANN registrars can grab the good domains that their customers do not renew. This is a registrar's sole obligation to ICANN when a registration is not renewed:

3.7.5 Registrar shall register Registered Names to Registered Name Holders only for fixed periods. At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to pay a renewal fee within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration. In the event that ICANN adopts a specification or policy concerning procedures for handling expiration of registrations, Registrar shall abide by that specification or policy.

If you want (or can stand) to read the entire agreement between ICANN and its registrars, here it is:

http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-...ent-17may01.htm

CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS???

 

[clemzonguy]

The link didn't work for me.

 

[clemzonguy]

HERE IS THE LINK

 

[dotsofdomains]

Teamwork. Thanks.

 

[Cartoonz]

ICANN registrars can grab the good domains that their customers do not renew.

Actually, that clause in the contract prohibits the registrars from "registering names for themselves". It states that :

...result in cancellation of the registration

which means that the domain registration be cancelled entirely, i.e. returned to the registy pool.

Many REGISTRARS are indeed violating this, but your post seems to indicate that ICANN allows it, which it does not.

...now if only ICANN grew some teeth to enforce this, we would all be better off.

 

[dotsofdomains]

The problem with the ICANN wording

shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration

is that "cancellation of the registration" is not defined, as most of us would like it to be defined, to mean "dropped." And, furthermore, the "extenuating circumstances" language gives the registrars too much "wiggle room." The registrar can still cancell the registration by registering it in its own name or the name of a prefered customer. I agree that if "cancellation of the registration" were clearly defined so as to mandate that the domain be "dropped," then registrar hoarding would not be the problem it now is.

 

[Cartoonz]

"cancellation of the registration" means just that, cancellation.
the registration can ONLY be cancelled by returning the name to the registry, that IS the "registration" the contract refers to. Removing/changing/ripping off the "registrant" does not constitute "cancellation.

While I agree that registrars are violating this clause, the clause does indeed clearly specify the desired course of action.

The real issue is the lack of a Uniform Deletion Process, which is something that ICANN is starting to work on now to replace the one weak spot in the contract that states that ALL registrars will adhere to a Uniform Deletion Process, should one be put into place by ICANN (but has not been yet).

 

[dotsofdomains]

I sense that no one wants to touch this issue with a ten foot pole, because if 'toonz is right that there is ONLY one contractual interpretation for the phrase "cancellation of the registration" and that is to "drop" the domain to the registry, then the registrars are, indeed, violating their contract with ICANN to the detriment of the little guys like us who feed off the detritus of the Internet.

Can anyone add any teeth to 'toonz interpretation that "cancel" must mean "drop"?

If the board is full of registrars who do this, then I can understand why no one else is offering back-up. I think this issue is hot. Let's turn up the heat. Chime in all.

 

Seems sensible that cancelling a registration is deleting the domain. Changing ownership of a domain is transferring it - and not cancelling it.

 

[dotsofdomains]

I spoke with an eNom reseller the other day. He said that his company, although they used to speculate in domains, got out of the biz because, in his words, "it's a conflict of interest." I think we are about to see a big shakedown on the hoarding issue.

Right now, the big registrars have taken the position that they have some secondary property right in the domains that their customers have registered but not renewed in a timely manner. Perhaps the most fundamental issue is simply this: Nothing in the ICANN/registar relationship suggests anything other than one of providing a service for a reasonable fee to domain name registrants.

THE REGISTRARS DO NOT ACQUIRE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN A DOMAIN NOT RENEWED, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY REGISTERED THAT DOMAIN FOR ONE OR MORE YEARS.

 

[dotsofdomains]

Please, if I am missing something, if the registrars do indeed acquire some contractual right to domains not renewed in any way, let us know about the source of that right. I just don't see it.

 

I agree, but until ICANN grow a spine, will it matter?

 

Unfortunately cancellation of the registration does not obligate the registrar to return the domain to the pool - it simply cancels the prior owner's right to the domain.

Remember that domain names are automatically renewed by the registry, charging the registrar $6 a domain. The registrar has 45 days in which to DELETE the domain, inwhich time he will get his money back. If he does not DELETE the domain in this time frame (RRP DELETE transactions are what causes a domain to drop), the registrar has paid the renewal for the next year with no rights at all passing to the prior registrant.

So, after 45 days, the registrar owns the domain. He paid the renewal. The customer did not renew.

What we really need, as has been stated, is an ICANN enforced drop policy. We don't have one, so names don't get dropped if it is the financial interest of the registrar to hold them.

-t

 

[dotsofdomains]

-t, your clarification is most welcome, and no less troublesome.

The 45 day window, instead of providing room for saving a registrant who was out of the country, out of touch, or simply out to lunch, has become a loophole for registrar "financial opportunity."

I still see no way that the system should convey property rights on registrars in these domain names--even if they elect not to seek a refund of the $6 within 45 days. Was this loophole forseen and planned as an opportunity ICANN was giving to its registrars?

I would love to see the testimony in court of the registrar employees who are charged with the task of evaluating whether to drop or retain these unrenewed domains. Just what are the criteria they use to assess value above or below $6; who directs them to act or not act; what does your internal legal counsel think about this practice; are you aware of whether your company has discussed the risks of legal action????? I think the answers would be illuminating.

 

[Cartoonz]

"Unfortunately cancellation of the registration does not obligate the registrar to return the domain to the pool - it simply cancels the prior owner's right to the domain."

incorrect.
But you can go ahead and believe what you like.

 

Cartoonz,

I am looking for you, please reply my email.
Thx.net

 

[mole]

Originally posted by Cartoonz
[B
incorrect.
But you can go ahead and believe what you like. [/B]

Action speaks louder than words. I have been involved in this frustration with the ICANN illogicallity for too long to believe your words, sorry. Welcome to the real world.

 

[domainduck]

Given equality amongst domain names; that each domain name, no matter how insignificant the TLD or ccTLD, is created equal. And that each is created with certain rights, including a voice as to how it is managed, it seems to me that the combined total of all resellers' domain names could amount to a voice with teeth. Is there such a united group or organization?


quack

 

[mole]

Yup, join the forum gang at ICANN.org.

 

[dotsofdomains]

TODAY IS THE DEADLINE TO REGISTER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ICANN AT LARGE ELECTION:

http://www.icannatlarge.com/voting.htm

http://www.icannatlarge.com/register.php