RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Proposed agenda for PEDNR WG call

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mason (and others), see my comments below. Note 
that they are made on my personal behalf, not on 
behalf of ALAC and certainly not as the acting chair of the WG.  Alan
At 19/08/2009 06:51 PM, Mason Cole wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification, Alan.
>
> To that point, I would ask the following
>
> - What specifically is happening when a 
> registrant can't get a name back from a 
> reseller?  Is there a particular trend of 
> behavior you're trying to prevent?  Or is it 
> just that the RAE should always be able to get a name back?
Mason, during this entire process, there have 
been a number of people who proposed that we use 
PEDNR as an opportunity to try to kill the entire 
domain secondary market (they said it in a more 
refined way of course). That is NOT the tact that 
the ALAC followed in its request for an Issues 
Report, nor is it anywhere near what I have said. 
If you go to the original request (at the back of 
the Issues Report), you will see a set of desired 
outcomes that the ALAC outlined.
Each of those desired outcomes was put there as a 
result of reports of very different things 
happening, or as the result of omissions in ICANN 
policies which could sanction and allow grievous 
outcomes (such as e-mail being intercepted).
> - What is the differential between what you see 
> in reseller problems vs. direct-with-registrar problems?
As I said, there is no theoretical difference, 
other than that most problems seem to occur when 
resellers are involved - that is not a 
statistically verified statement, but the 
impression of a number of people who have looked 
at the issues. I think that the main difference 
(and this is purely my own opinion) is that those 
who go to the trouble of meeting ICANN's criteria 
for being an ICANN accredited registrar have more 
at stake than the typical small reseller, and thus act in a different manner.
> - Because resellers are out of ICANN's purview, 
> what is proposed as a solution, given that there 
> are (by your statement) far fewer problems when 
> dealing directly with registrars?
It is up to our working group to propose 
solutions. If I have my way, we will do it well 
enough so that we don't have to revisit this 
issue AGAIN in a couple of years. In terms of 
details, the new RAA goes much further than the 
previous one in that it at least defines the 
concept of resellers and explicitly applies some 
rules (which were probably technically there in 
the past, as Tim has said, but now are harder to 
ignore). I suspect that we need to extend that 
somewhat. I also think that we need to put some 
clear guidelines as to what can and does happen 
in the end-of-life time frame. It will no doubt 
impact what some registrars do, and will have 
little or no impact on others. I also personally 
beleive that ICANN also needs the ability to 
check compliance, not just on the registrars who 
have a model that does not include resellers, but 
for those that use resellers as well.

> Perhaps also, as part of the research into this, 
> it would be helpful to see what other industries 
> do when addressing problems with resellers.  As 
> also was pointed out on the call yesterday, the 
> reseller model is employed by all kinds of 
> businesses -- I think I would be surprised if 
> there weren't practices somewhere that we could look at.
Certainly something we could do if the WG 
believes that it would be a profitable use of time.





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 5:14 PM
> To: PEDNR
> Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Proposed agenda for PEDNR WG call
>
>
> Mason, let me try to phrase this another way. It
> is not that there is a "problem presented by
> resellers". It is simply that when there is a
> problem that occurs in trying to reclaim a name
> shortly after expiration, it very often turns out
> that the RAE was dealing with a reseller. There
> is nothing that they do that a registrar might
> not do, but there are apparently far few problems
> when dealing directly with registrars.
>
> Based on the discussions today that more than one
> registrar has over 30,0000 resellers each, perhaps this is not surprising.
>
> Alan
>
> At 18/08/2009 02:02 PM, Mason Cole wrote:
> >I'm afraid there still is no clarity on the
> >problem, however you want to define it, being
> >presented by resellers.  I heard several times
> >in Sydney that resellers were the real
> >problem.  I've asked for clarification on this
> >list, or for a demonstration of how resellers
> >create difficulty for a user, and the extent to
> >which this is happening, but no one has done so or even replied.
> >
> >Could someone please do so for the benefit of this entire group?
> >
> >There's the separate issue of course of reseller
> >"control" by ICANN, which looks very much like
> >something out of the purview of this group.  I'm
> >more interested in what, if anything, users are experiencing via resellers.
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:53 AM
> >To: gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Proposed agenda for PEDNR WG call
> >
> >
> >James, I think that you proposal is a valid thing
> >to discuss, but I do not believe that we can take it as a given.
> >
> >At 18/08/2009 11:07 AM, James M. Bladel wrote:
> >
> > >Thanks, Marika.
> > >
> > >Before we dive too deeply into questions about resellers, I'd encourage
> > >folks to review the new Registrar Accreditation Agreement (adopted early
> > >by many major registrars).  Specifically, it contains provisions
> > >addressing the relationship between registrars and resellers, beginning
> > >with the new language in Sec. 3.12.
> > >
> > >http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/agreements.html
> > >
> > >With this in mind, I would propose that we make no distinction between
> > >"resellers" and "registrars" for the purposes of this PDP.
> > >
> > >Thanks--
> > >
> > >J.
> > >
> > >
> > >    -------- Original Message --------
> > >  Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Proposed agenda for PEDNR WG call
> > >  From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >  Date: Tue, August 18, 2009 2:37 am
> > >  To: "gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > >  Proposed agenda for PEDNR WG call Dear All,
> > >
> > >  Please find below the proposed agenda for 
> today�¢??s PEDNR WG call. For
> > >further details, p, p, please see the WG wiki at
> > >https://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/.
> > >
> > >  With best regards,
> > >
> > >  Marika
> > >
> > >  Proposed Agenda
> > >
> > >
> > >+ Roll-call
> > >+ Finalization of PEDNR public comment announcement
> > >+ Review of constituency input template
> > >+ Continue discussion on registrar survey �­ which informmation is
> > >required to answer charter questions?
> > >+ Discussion of example of a �¢??so-called reseseller that is likely a
> > >Registrar�¢�¢?? provideided by Garth Bruen
> > >+ Schedule for next and nd further meetings