Registrars hoarding names for resale - within the ICANN rules ?

[beatz]

Hi,

as i showed in an example here, there seem to be quite a number of registrars registering names for themselves only for the purpose of reselling them later for a higher price or that keep expired names from customers for the same purpose.

Since they're registrars, do such practices comply with ICANN regulations for registrars ?

I'd doubt it, as they gain an "unfair" advantage through their discount prices at the registry, but i don't know for sure - someone enlighten me please.

Thanks !

 

[Dave Zan]

The answer to your question lies in the fine prints among 3 parties, namely:

1. The registrars.

2. The Registries.

3. ICANN (or whomever the 1st 2 have contracted with).

If somebody here believes a registrar is violating its agreements with ICANN,
then use the complaint form and send specifics.

(Say, didn't you post this somewhere else? :-D)

 

[katherine]

Let's look at the registrar agreement from ICANN:
http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-12may99.htm

9. Registrar shall abide by any ICANN-adopted policy prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars.

So registrars are not supposed to be 'stockpiling' names. But where do you draw the line ? 1000 names ? 10000 ? 1% of total portfolio. There is no easy answer.
Anyway, ICANN is teethless these days. Many registrars are in breach of agreement for one reason or another and ICANN don't seem to care.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

You need to read things a bit more closely ... "any ICANN-adopted policy" ... you see, if ICANN has not adopted any policies then there are no policies to follow. BUZZ you lose.

Besides, suppose there was an ICANN policy against it ... who is going to enforce it? BUZZ you lose.

You see you just can't win at the ICANN game.

 

[jberryhill]

So registrars are not supposed to be 'stockpiling' names.

Incorrect.

Take this fact:

1. You tell me: "I will abide by any law requiring me to wear pink underpants"

Now answer this question:

Do you have to wear pink underpants?

http://icann.org/meetings/marrakech/captioning-dn-27jun06.htm

>>CHUCK GOMES: I am Chuck Gomes with VeriSign, and I'm really not advocating any particular position. But I think that a correction I believe is necessary with regard to the R or RAA, Sarah, that you mentioned.
ICANN does allow for the development of a policy on warehousing names, and the language you are referring to I believe references that. But to my knowledge, there has never been any policy developed with regard to that.

Extra question for experts:

What are the odds that ICANN, which is funded on registration fees, is going to adopt a policy which discourages domain registrations?

(on edit: Your next hurdle is to define warehousing of or speculation in domain names. I guarantee you this. Once you have a definition of those terms, and a policy against it, there will be no registrars which engage in "warehousing of or speculation in" domain names." They will do something, of course, but the registrars will not engage in those defined things. At a minimum, they will set up another corporation which does.)

 

[jdk]

They will do something, of course, but the registrars will not engage in those defined things. At a minimum, they will set up another corporation which does.)

Very true

 

[Dale Hubbard]

There's a definitive answer. Well-put, JB. It's all in the verbiage as usual. Some of these registrars are actually getting away with blue murder.

 

[Theo]

It's funny how beatz contradicts himself in a similar thread, where Enom is holding hostage a domain - see http://www.dnforum.com/thread174142.html

 

[beatz]

It's funny how beatz contradicts himself in a similar thread, where Enom is holding hostage a domain - see http://www.dnforum.com/thread174142.html

Uh ?

First, what has this thread to do with that other one ?
Second, why am i contradicting myself ?
Third, why are you stalking me and amking this personal ?

Fourth - time for a report i think.

 

[Theo]

Uh oh - touched a soft spot there beatz?

I commented on this thread because your approach is hypocritical. In this thread you are ranting over how a registrar is hoarding domains without releasing them. In the thread that I opened - and to which you offered ample specimens of "advice" - you claim I have no right to complain over the same exact matter, a registrar holding onto a name I have lawful interest in.

Decide which one it is. As for antics over "stalking" I think you are getting ridiculous. Feel free to report me as well.

 

[beatz]

Nonsense.

This very thread was about indeed registrars hoarding names.

My point in the other thread was that - no matter how wrong it is that they're not releasing names in general - the question is why would *YOU* have any more rights to that name than other TM owners or even if you should be the only TM owner for the specific term it indeed doesn't equal automatic rights to that domain so i doubt you'd have a good chance to get that name with *that* strategy.

You're just not *neccessarily* the only one who might have a legitimate interest in the name in case should they release it.

Maybe you can get them to release it indeed but i'd doubt you have enough legal grounds to have the name *transferred* to you.

Just my personal opnion of course.

Anyway, i have no interest to further exchange opinions with you so i'll stop here.

 

[Theo]

Sorry beatz. The USPTO says otherwise. Have a GREAT day.

 

[beatz]

Well then why were there any questions like "do i have a case" anyway ?

You have a great day too.

As for the report - done it...as you probably know.

But i'll stop for real now :tape2: