RE: [gnso-dow123] NCUC Procedural Proposal - recirculated

["Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I understand it is done; my question is whether it is consistent with
the RAA.  As I seem to recall someone saying in other task force
postings, just because something is useful or convenient does not
necessarily mean it is legal. 

Ross's posting and Tom's seem to read "its registration fee" in this
provision as referring to the fee the registrar must pay the registry.
But that fee is called (in the registry agreement -- at least in Section
4.1 of the .org agreement) the "registry operator fee."  More
importantly, payment of that fee is clearly the obligation of the
registrar, whether the registrant contributes to it or not.  The
registrant does not owe this fee to the registry, so it does not make
sense to say that the registrar would "guarantee" the registrant's
payment of it.  

The more logical reading of this provision is that "its registration
fee" refers to the fee the registrar charges the registrant.  That may
be more or less than the "registry operator fee" that the registrar must
pay the registry. The question is whether the registration fee may be
zero. The second sentence of 3.7.4 seems inconsistent with a zero 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."  

At the time this provision was first included in the RAA (1999) it was
viewed as a significant protection against speculative or abusive
registration.  If the registrar had to get reasonable assurance of
payment before the registration took effect, it also made it more likely
that it would know who the registrant was.  Certainly this has some
relevance to the issue of accuracy of Whois data.    

Steve        

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 10:26 AM
To: Steve Metalitz
Cc: Bruce Tonkin; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] NCUC Procedural Proposal - recirculated

This seems to be a bit of a red-herring, but to answer the question, the
RAA does not specify whom payment must be secured from. In other words,
if the registrar or another party is willing to act as a guarantor for
the fees, then it is perfectly reasonable for them to offer names to the
public on a no-cost basis. This practice has been in consistent use
since early 2000.

Steve Metalitz wrote:
> Bruce,
> 
> On what basis can "registrars offer domain names for free," in light 
> of the following provision of the 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.
> 
> Steve
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:57 AM
> To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] NCUC Procedural Proposal - recirculated
> 
> Hello Kathy,
>  
> As discussed during the last GNSO Council meeting, the WHOIS task 
> force does not have as part of its terms of reference a change to the 
> data being collected.  The WHOIS task force is tasked with considering

> what data collected should be available for public access, in the
context of
> the purpose of WHOIS.    The WHOIS task force work specifically
> addresses the current clause 3.3 "Public Access to Data on Registered 
> Names" of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) (see
> http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3.)
> 
> While work on considering the data collected may also be a useful area

> of policy development, this would require a separate PDP under the 
> GNSO's processes.  For information, registrars are required to retain 
> certain information (clause 3.4 "Retention of Registered Name Holder 
> and Registration Data."), and are also required under clause 3.7 
> "Business Dealings, Including with Registered Name Holders." to 
> provide information on the purpose for which data is collected:
> 
> "Registrar shall provide notice to each new or renewed Registered Name

> Holder stating:
> 
> - The purposes for which any Personal Data collected from the 
> applicant are intended;
> 
> - The intended recipients or categories of recipients of the data 
> (including the Registry Operator and others who will receive the data 
> from Registry Operator);
> 
> - Which data are obligatory and which data, if any, are voluntary; and
> 
> - How the Registered Name Holder or data subject can access and, if 
> necessary, rectify the data held about them."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that the purposes that data is collected may vary by registrar, 
> and registrants should check those purposes.  For example some 
> registrars may offer domain names for free, but in return provide the 
> personal information to marketing companies etc.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> Chair, GNSO.
> 
> 


Regards,

-- 

                        -rr








                 "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
                                            All life is an experiment.
                             The more experiments you make the better."
                         - Ralph Waldo Emerson


Contact Info:

Ross Rader
Director, Research & Innovation
Tucows Inc.
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783

Get Started: http://start.tucows.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org