Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Proposed agenda for today's PEDNR WG meeting

[Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello

I was unable to attend the call two weeks ago and listened to the MP3 and
have some comments and suggestions on the topics discussed:

1.  If ICANN has a record of 1270 complaints (related to transfer in general
or Post Expiry issues?)  from among 160 million domain names, it implies on
the surface that issues in PEDNR are proportionately too insignificant to
pursue. This couldn't be true.

The average Registrant deals with a reseller and would certainly be
unfamiliar with the Reseller - Wholesaler, Registrar - Registry chain and
possibly have no clue about what ICANN is all about. So the complaints that
have reached ICANN represent the complaints from the most informed among the
Registrants who happen to be familiar with the ICANN process. Some of these
complaints might have been 'forwarded' to ICANN by the Registrars
themselves, but the proportion of complaints that make it to the liaisons /
Ombudsman can not be taken as any indication of the possible quantum of
complaints nor about the range of issues. Channels of complaints are yet to
be established in a manner that is known and accessible to the Registrants.
There also is the issue of people who complain Vs people who don't, which is
possibly a far greater proportion.

A true picture can only emerge if resellers and Registrars share their
records on complaints. Or if Registrars adopt it as one of their Good
practices, a visible and understandable interface in their websites to raise
issues that are automatically copied to the Registry and onto ICANN as a
Transparency measure. Technically this is very easy to implement, even at
the Reseller level, but this may not be so easily accepted by the market as
a good idea.

A Registrar who receives an average of 8 - 10 complaints a year (Who was
that speaking? I want to register a domain name) is an example of a business
entity which good business practices which reflects on the surprisingly
small number of complaints. But for every one good Registrar, there are 4
other Registrars who are at least careless and possibly 40 Resellers who are
short-sighted in their business practices. It is possible that complaints
and protests raised by Registrants get mired in unrecorded voice 'support'
mechanisms, unread or brushed aside email messages at the Reseller level and
the complaints never reach even the Registrar or Registry.

So the present data base of recorded complaints may not be taken as an
indication of the magnitude of the issue.

2.  Though this working group is focused on Post Expiry Domain Name Recovery
issues, it would be unwise to be completely closed on discussions related in
the pre-expiry stage. For example a pre-expiry domain transfer restriction
could trap a Registrant with a Reseller/Registrar which spills over sooner
or later as a post expiry issue. At least in the interest of understanding
general practices, the pre-expiry issues could be broadly examined, which
would give this WG a greater depth of background understanding.

3.  Why is it that ICANN has allowed a Reseller or a Registrar to consider a
domain name registered once by the Reseller or Registrar as "territory" ?
The Registrant pays for a domain name, he owns it, he loses it, and when he
loses it, the Registry and symbolically ICANN,  'owns' it. The Reseller or
Registrar may emerge as the natural first choice for the registrant to
renew, re-register during the grace period or seek complex services to
recover the name post grace period, but the Registrant may have to have
total freedom to choose to do any of this through any other reseller or
Registrar. This could happen if ICANN establishes a practice to
automatically absorb the expired domain names into a (Registry level) pool
of domains not renewed - on the day the domain name expires. Renewal after
expiry for a period of 90 or more days could be automatic for the previous
Registrant without much complications, and post grace period the Registry
could consider the domain name blocked for the rest of the year (for any one
other than the previous registrant) after which the domain name forms part
of the available names to be registered by any one through any reseller or
any Registrar.

This could be totally contrary to established market practices, but it is
hardly 10 years since ICANN came into being and can't be expected to have
evolved systems and practices to perfection within this time. So, we need to
acknowledge that the existing practices are inadequate and highly imperfect
and seek to evolve systems and practices now.

What this working group, possibly in consultation with related working
groups, could do is to set its sights on defining good conventions and
practices that would remove the possibility of unduly exploitative practices
by the wrong players in the market place (which would be for the good of the
good players in the market place, in general)

Thank you.


Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com

facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz




On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Marika Konings
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  Dear All,
>
> Hereby the proposed agenda for today’s PEDNR call:
>
>
>    - Update on development of working definition to distinguish between
>    registered name holder before expiration of the domain name registration 
> and
>    the registered name holder after expiration of the domain name registration
>    (Alan Greenberg, Mike Palage)
>    - Update on data gathering from ICANN (compliance department, registrar
>    liaison team) and ICANN ombudsman on complaints relating to post-expiration
>    domain name recovery issues (William McKelligott, Marika Konings)
>    - Update on gathering of anecdotal or other examples/evidence related
>    to PEDNR (Tatyana / All)
>    - Review PEDNR public comment announcement
>    - Development of constituency statement template
>    - Seoul schedule – PEDNR update / workshop
>
>
> With best regards,
>
> Marika
>