[council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting Thursday 13 January 2005

Ken Stubbs kstubbs at afilias.info
Wed Jan 5 23:57:57 UTC 2005

Fellow councilors

i believe that these are issues that need to be worked out between the 
Registries and  Registrars (with the assistance of  ICANN staff).
I don't really see the need for creation of consensus policies (as 
outlined in Philip's e-mail) to deal with these issues.

ken Stubbs

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> Philip,
> 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?
> 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.
> (happy new year everyone!)
> On 1/5/2005 8:49 AM Philip Sheppard noted that:
>> Bruce, would you be kind enough to table this resolution for the 13 
>> January
>> Council meeting on behalf of the BC?
>> Issue - Re-selling of valuable deleted domain names in a secondary 
>> market
>> The typical model for selling deleted TLDs is first-come first-served 
>> and
>> this works well for ordinary names where the profit to registries and
>> registrars is small and similar.  But it does not work for special names
>> where the domain name equity is much higher, either because the name has
>> perceived value, or there is a desirable level of associated traffic 
>> with
>> the name. A secondary market has grown up to remarket the names. Some 
>> names
>> are bought for speculative resell; others because they have traffic 
>> still
>> active and are resold to redirect the traffic to other, sometimes
>> undesirable, sites. This market has created a new business 
>> opportunity for
>> registrars and a problem for the registries. Certain registrars are
>> "slaming" the registries with automated requests for desirable names.
>> Because the present system provides equal access to all registrars, some
>> registrars have created new ICANN accredited daughter registrars 
>> whose sole
>> purpose is to request deleted names - thus increasing the chance for the
>> parent registrar to get desirable names.  This massive set of 
>> requests is
>> affecting the ability of the registrars to manage their existing bona 
>> fide
>> business efficiently. This impacts on stability. The implication of 
>> these
>> new types of ICANN accredited registrars needs to be assessed.
>> Proposal
>> Council needs to investigate the issue fully and so should consider 
>> the need
>> for a PDP with a request for ICANN staff to write an issues report.
>> Draft resolution
>> Whereas the re-selling of certain deleted or expiring names has lead to
>> unforeseen strains on the ability of registries and registrars to manage
>> their business efficiently,
>> Whereas this affects the service level provided to users and the 
>> meaning of
>> ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars,
>> Council resolves,
>> to request the ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as 
>> specified
>> in annex A to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Re-selling of valuable
>> deleted/expiring domain names in a secondary market", so that Council 
>> can
>> subsequently decide if a policy development process would be 
>> appropriate.
>> Many thanks
>> Philip
>> PS I am open to friendly amendments to improve the wording of the 
>> resolution
>> should this help clarity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20050105/27b60d6b/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list