Re: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

Why can't the UK's Nominet approach be employed? If a registrant wants to
transfer their domain, say from one registrar to another, they can simply
direct the registry (Nominet) to carry out that transfer, change the tag,
and it's done. The registry overrules the registrar, and a priority is
placed on the registrant's wishes. If, thereafter, a registrar or anyone
else had grounds for complaint, it is then left for the complaining party to
initiate normal legal action if they wish.

It seems to me that this approach, carried out in UK, puts the proper
priority on the consumer who has actually bought the product/service in the
first place.

Nominet does not set out to make profit, and has no particular reason to
court any of its registrars. It acts in the capacity of providing a service
for the public. Maybe the whole concept of basing domain name distribution
on the profit motivation and the marketplace is skewed in the first place.
Your DNS industry seems obsessed with giving importance to people who
basically just act as go betweens, but too often seem to get in the way. I
accept that registrars also offer a range of other services, and I respect
their right to try to earn a living like anyone else. However, the consumer,
the ordinary internet user, the At Large, the actual people of the net, get
marginalised in all kinds of ways.

I'm afraid I think that ICANN is incestuously involved with the registry and
registrar industries, and the whole thing seems artificially imposed, when
viewed from outside (for example from the UK).

Here in the UK, with Nominet administering the .uk namespace,  it seems to
me we enjoy a more straightforward and less muddied set up. As I say. If
you, the registrant want to transfer, Nominet will do it for you. It's easy.
It's quick.

Small wonder if ccTLDs look in at the ICANN morass, and start thinking that
they'd be better off administering their own affairs.

I applaud Nominet. ICANN I view with the greatest scepticism. Look at the
Australian code of conduct for registrars. How refreshing. Logical and
reasonable consumer protection. Look at ICANN. Unresponsive to consumer
concerns. Laissez faire in the extreme. Obsessed with a market model for the
administration of a resource which should be virtually free for everyone,
and which is basically the distribution of strings of numbers. And yet, they
have made it a feeding frenzy for all kinds of sharks, and they seek to
extend their control to other countries and the much clearer and more honest
dealings that many of them want to enjoy.

What can possibly justify some of these ludicrous fees? Who thinks up these
schemes? Who presides over them?

Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: L. Gallegos <jandl@jandl.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 10:28 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees


>
>
> On 19 Feb 2003 at 14:55, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>
> > > As in the case of the Redemption Grace Period (where a
> > > registry has set an
> > > initial $85 charge and then registrars proceed to gouge the
> > > registrant to the
> > > full extent of their greed), I fully expect to see registrars
> > > continuing to
> > > screw registrants in similar fashion via the transfers
> > > dispute resolution
> > > process.
> >
> <snip>
>
> "The road to hell is paved with good intentions...  "
>
> >
> > The task force envisioned a process whereby a registrant would file a
> > dispute through a registrar. The registrar would then be able to
> > determine which party would be best suited to resolve the dispute - the
> > registry or a third party.
>
> In such a dispute, both the registry and registrar are interested parties
> and should have nothing to do with choosing an arbitrator or mediator.
> There should also be no forced arbitration such as UDRP which screws the
> consumer and is biased in its very structure and rules.
>
> There is no reason why the registrar has to
> > first go to the registry when filing a dispute. The two benefits to this
> > approach - first, it incents the registries to provide the service
> > competitively. There is nothing that forces me to pay anything to a
> > registry that has priced themselves out of the market. In fact, I can
shop
> > the dispute around and pick the recognized third party resolver that
will
> > give me the best price (which comes with some downsides as the UDRP
points
> > out, but I'm not sure that forum shopping will get us much here other
than
> > potentially, a price break.) Second, it ensures that a non-biased party
is
> > hearing the dispute. If, for some reason, the registry is potentially
> > conflicted, the registry won't be put in a position where it *must* hear
a
> > dispute and be conflicted.
> >
>
> The RGP, in concept, was a reasonable idea until it was perverted with
> totally outrageous fees.  I can't see where this forced dispute
> arbitration would be any different.  It's certainly a boon to providers,
> but does nothing at all for anyone else, except perhaps registrars and
> registries.
>
> If there is a dispute over a transfer, providers (registrars/registries)
> should be expected to handle it, period.  If they do not, there are legal
> avenues.  If there is a dispute method to be determined, it should be, in
> all cases, handled by a third party and be non-binding.  There have been
> many errors made by registrars and "glitches" in the system(s).  I would
> like to know how many of these are caused by registrant error and how many
> are caused by registrars/registries.   Why should a registrant have to
> spend hundreds or thousands of dollars when there is a transfer mess?  Who
> will benefit?  Registrars should be held accountable for transfers, as
> should registries.  If an error is made - fix it.
>
> > Third parties have quoted roughly $1500 per dispute to sort these things
> > out - I am sure the registries could be persuaded to do this on a cost
> > recovery basis which would make them substantially cheaper than this...
>
> Like RGP?  Ludicrous.
>
> >
> > Perhaps someone that actually runs a registry could answer this question
> > more specifically ;)
>
> That's pretty simple.  If a registrant files a complaint about a transfer,
> follow the trail and fix the problem.  If it was fraud, get law
> enforcement involved.  If it was an error, reverse it and refund any money
> collected.
>
> >
> > Lastly, it wasn't envisioned that this would be a chargable service for
> > registrars any more than processing UDRP complaints is - therefore your
> > concerns that Registrars would surcharge the community to death are not
> > likely to come into play. I understand why you feel this way, but I
don't
> > see it really coming into play on this particular point...time could
prove
> > me wrong however.
>
> I think time (a short time) will prove you very wrong.
>
> Leah
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html