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

["Mason Cole" <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michele asks some good questions here.  If the beliefs stated in this
thread are true, then it's a very troubling landscape.  I find it
extremely difficult to believe that for every good registrar, there are
four registrars/resellers that are bad actors.  That means 80% of
registrant-facing businesses operate with bad intent.

I was the one on the call who gave the 8-10 number, but it wasn't about
complaints.  It was about how many registrants contact us to let us know
they didn't intend to let a name expire and want to see if it can be
recovered.  That said, if you'd like to register a name, we're happy to
have your business.

We do get complaints, of course, but as Michele correctly points out,
they're for all sorts of reasons, many of which are out of our control.
I further agree funneling those complaints elsewhere would not at all be
productive.  

I also want to caution against assumptions about the ease of technical
implementation of any idea.  Implementation of any change in process is
a bigger deal than you might think, and its impact is significant in
time, resources and disruption.



-----Original Message-----
From: Michele Neylon :: Blacknight [mailto:michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 5:57 AM
To: gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Proposed agenda for today's
PEDNR WG meeting



On 11 Aug 2009, at 13:43, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:

> 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.

Why not?

You're working on the basis that there "has to be" an issue - while  
there may not be at all

(of course there might be, but your statement is loaded)

>
> The average Registrant deals with a reseller

How do you know that for a fact?

The largest ICANN registrar is currently GoDaddy. While a percentage  
of the domains are probably effectively "resold" they would not appear  
to be on their reseller brand from what I can see

So on what basis do you make that statement?


> 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.

Based on the list of complaints that was posted to the list ICANN is  
being sent complaints about things that have nothing to do with ICANN  
whatsoever (which isn't that surprising)

Yesterday, for example, someone suggested that ICANN should "step in"  
because a URL shortening service had gone out of business!!!!!


> 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.


Ok, but surely if there was a HUGE issue then ICANN would hear about  
it as a respondent in a court case?


>
> A true picture can only emerge if resellers and Registrars share  
> their records on complaints.

Why on earth would any of us do that?

Typical complaints we get (and this is regardless of the TLD) relate  
to things that have absolutely nothing to do with factors we control


> 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.

What has the registry got to do with anything here?

Why would registry staff OR ICANN want to know about every single  
possible issue on the internet?

Don't get me wrong, but if ICANN or any of the registry operators were  
to be sent ALL complaints then they'd need a huge number of staff just  
to filter through all the crud and work out what was actually relevant  
and/or actionable

Registrants won't want to pay for this


> 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.

No it's not

>
> 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.

Rubbish

People complain all the time for completely spurious reasons

Unless you qualify the type and gravity of the complaint those figures  
are totally meaningless



> 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.

Again, do you have any actual facts?


> 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.


Maybe not ...


>
> 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.

Why would any registrar OR registry agree to this?

Pre-expiry is one thing, but post-expiry this could cause massive  
headaches for all parties involved


>
> 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)

Regards

Michele


Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business  
Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845