<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Fellow councilors<br>
<br>
i believe that these are issues that need to be worked out between the
Registries and Registrars (with the assistance of ICANN staff).<br>
I don't really see the need for creation of consensus policies (as
outlined in Philip's e-mail) to deal with these issues. <br>
<br>
ken Stubbs<br>
</font><br>
Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid41DC7922.8040003@tucows.com" type="cite"><br>
Philip,
<br>
<br>
I believe that I understand the intent of this motion, and I don't
think I disagree with it, but might I suggest that we instead look at
this issue in the context of the stability of the DNS and the
registration and management function instead of the market and
operational slant that found in the current overview and motion?
<br>
<br>
In other words, let's look at this from a policy failure and
remediation perspective instead of attempting to navigate business
models and operational practices.
<br>
<br>
(happy new year everyone!)
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 1/5/2005 8:49 AM Philip Sheppard noted that:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Bruce, would you be kind enough to table this
resolution for the 13 January
<br>
Council meeting on behalf of the BC?
<br>
<br>
Issue - Re-selling of valuable deleted domain names in a secondary
market
<br>
<br>
The typical model for selling deleted TLDs is first-come first-served
and
<br>
this works well for ordinary names where the profit to registries and
<br>
registrars is small and similar. But it does not work for special
names
<br>
where the domain name equity is much higher, either because the name
has
<br>
perceived value, or there is a desirable level of associated traffic
with
<br>
the name. A secondary market has grown up to remarket the names. Some
names
<br>
are bought for speculative resell; others because they have traffic
still
<br>
active and are resold to redirect the traffic to other, sometimes
<br>
undesirable, sites. This market has created a new business opportunity
for
<br>
registrars and a problem for the registries. Certain registrars are
<br>
"slaming" the registries with automated requests for desirable names.
<br>
Because the present system provides equal access to all registrars,
some
<br>
registrars have created new ICANN accredited daughter registrars whose
sole
<br>
purpose is to request deleted names - thus increasing the chance for
the
<br>
parent registrar to get desirable names. This massive set of requests
is
<br>
affecting the ability of the registrars to manage their existing bona
fide
<br>
business efficiently. This impacts on stability. The implication of
these
<br>
new types of ICANN accredited registrars needs to be assessed.
<br>
<br>
Proposal
<br>
Council needs to investigate the issue fully and so should consider the
need
<br>
for a PDP with a request for ICANN staff to write an issues report.
<br>
<br>
Draft resolution
<br>
Whereas the re-selling of certain deleted or expiring names has lead to
<br>
unforeseen strains on the ability of registries and registrars to
manage
<br>
their business efficiently,
<br>
Whereas this affects the service level provided to users and the
meaning of
<br>
ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars,
<br>
<br>
Council resolves,
<br>
to request the ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as
specified
<br>
in annex A to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Re-selling of valuable
<br>
deleted/expiring domain names in a secondary market", so that Council
can
<br>
subsequently decide if a policy development process would be
appropriate.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Many thanks
<br>
Philip
<br>
<br>
PS I am open to friendly amendments to improve the wording of the
resolution
<br>
should this help clarity.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>