unethical registrar expoitation of the domain dropping system.

[Chris Thomas <chrisgingethomas@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I wish to mirror Patrick Quinn's statement that the practice of registrars 
'skimming' names from names which are dropping and sent to auction is 
completely unethical and a breach of icann regulations. I also wish to see 
icann's policy amended to severely punish registrars exploiting the system to 
further their own portfolios.
 
More details:-
 
I respectfully request that ICANN fulfill your obligation of Section 2.3.2 of 
the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA ) to:2.3.2 not unreasonably restrain 
competition and, to the extent feasible, promote and encourage robust 
competition;...by clarifying the language of Section 3.7.9 to EXPLICITLY FORBID 
the unethical and unfair practice of Warehousing and Speculation by 
Registrars.Currently, at least one Registrar, Tucows Inc., is by the admission 
(boast?) of their President/CEO Elliot Noss, adding to their "portfolio" 6000 
to 8000 expired domain names per month, which at this writing would be 
somewhere in the neighborhood of 168,000 to 224,000 domain names, since they 
adopted this policy.He says: "We believe we are one of the leading portfolios 
in the world. Please remember we pick up 6000 to 8000 more names each month 
from expiring domains. We made the decision two years ago to acquire expiring 
names that we believe add value."The entire quote from a February 7th, 2008 
Investor conference call, is available 
below:http://seekingalpha.com/article/63693-tucows-inc-q4-2007-earnings-call-transcript?source=yahoo&page=-1
Section 3.7.9 as it currently reads is clearly meant to outlaw this practice, 
but apparently Tucows chooses not to read it that way, therefore ICANN must add 
more explicit language to the RAA and enforce the current provisions of 3.7.9 
and 3.7.5. Any and all names that have expired and been re-registered by Tucows 
Inc. or any other Registrar without being released as specified under section 
3.7.5 must also be released to the available pool.Section 3.7.5 of the current 
RAA clearly states that expired names be cancelled and released to the pool of 
available names. See below for current ICANN policy on 
deletions:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.icann.org/registrars/eddp.htmExpired
 Domain Deletion PolicyPosted: 21 September 2004
Beginning on 21 December 2004, Section 3.7.5 [of the RAA] will be replaced with 
the following language:3.7.5 At the conclusion of the registration period, 
failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to consent that the 
registration be renewed within the time specified in a second notice or 
reminder shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in 
cancellation of the registration by the end of the auto-renew grace period 
(although Registrar may choose to cancel the name earlier).3.7.5.1 Extenuating 
circumstances are defined as: UDRP action, valid court order, failure of a 
Registrar's renewal process (which does not include failure of a registrant to 
respond), the domain name is used by a nameserver that provides DNS service to 
third-parties (additional time may be required to migrate the records managed 
by the nameserver), the registrant is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, 
payment dispute (where a registrant claims to have paid for a renewal, or a 
discrepancy in the amount paid), billing dispute (where a registrant disputes 
the amount on a bill), domain name subject to litigation in a court of 
competent jurisdiction, or other circumstance as approved specifically by 
ICANN.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This
 Expired Domain Deletion Policy was amended in 2004 to further clarify the 
"extenuating circumstances" in which the name will not be cancelled. None of 
those extenuating circumstances are related to the Registrar wishing to "add to 
their portfolio."This is an egregious breach of the Registrar role which is to 
manage the domain names. The Registrar is duly compensated through registration 
fees. They do not own the domain names any more than any Registrant owns 
them.The practice of siphoning off the most desirable names instead of 
releasing them to the available pool or, at the least, public auction, puts the 
Registrar at a ridiculously unfair advantage, and makes a mockery of the role 
of Registrar as stewards of the resource. Why on earth should a Registrar, who 
is chartered with administrating a public resource, be given a completely 
unfair advantage in obtaining that very resource for itself with no competition 
whatsoever???Clearly that is the agenda of Tucows Inc. and  possibly other 
Registrars.
For further evidence see this comment by Tucows Domain Portfolio General 
Manager, Bill Sweetman:Q. Does being a registrar give you the right to keep 
domains that its customers fail to renew?A. Yes.Full context here:
http://namebio.com/NameBioBlog/2008/04/17/tucows-admits-to-warehousing-domains/
Please rectify this situation without further delay by changing the language of 
Section 3.7.9 to this:3.7.9 Registrar shall be prohibited from warehousing or 
speculation in domain names. Expired domain names will be released to the 
available pool as specified in 3.7.5
 
Best Regards
 
Chris Thomas
_________________________________________________________________
Get Messenger on your mobile, text MSN to 63463 now!
http://mobile.uk.msn.com/pc/messenger.aspx