Re: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

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

I agree with you, Leah. I mentioned earlier today here, that Nominet in UK
will step in, on behalf of a verifiable registrant, if a registrar is
refusing to co-operate. Bearing in mind that the Registrar Industry is
self-regulated, and does not even have a Code of Conduct, it's perfectly
obvious why some registrants / consumers encounter appalling problems.

The unregulated system (with ICANN pursuing an informal doctrine of "laissez
faire") is stacked in favour of some registrars getting away with blue
murder, remaining accredited and unsanctioned, and stacked against the
honest customer.

Here in UK I honestly think we have a more decent set up, with the Registry
reasonably separated from any profit motive, and willing (for example)
simply to carry out a transfer "over the heads of non-complaint registrars"
if a registrant requests the Registry so to do.

I've just today succeeded in shifting a dozen domains that a Registrar had
been holding to ransom. Instead of having to take the registrar to court,
Nominet acts on behalf of me as Registrant. As it's me who paid for the
commodity, me who has a right to change registrars if I wish, me who is
simply trying to do business without interference, and me who has the right
to these names, I think Nominet is absolutely right, and I thank them for
it.

It concerns me, if any other Registries take a different view (because of
financial concerns and self-interest). Let's get this straight: we need an
industry where the two go-between layers (Registry and Registrar) are only
justified if they are actually serving the consumer. Too often, a rogue
element in these layers has impeded normal people going about their normal
business.

I understand fears about over-regulation.

What is needed is *targetted* regulation to pre-empt injustices which rogue
elements will otherwise try to get away with.

ICANN should follow the lead and example set by the .uk and .aus registries,
and insist *as a condition of participation in the industry* that Registries
have to operate a mandatory Code of Conduct and Standards, and that
Registries are obliged *as a condition of participation in the industry* to
enforce a Code of Conduct on the Registrars with whom they have
Registry-Registrar Agreements.

Clearly ICANN can't directly control every tiny reseller and one-room
registrar all over the globe. The key channel, where implementation has to
occur, is the Registry... they are the channel... they can turn on and off
the supply.

But in order to make sure the Registry really enforces, ICANN should
contractually impose standards on Registries, who should stand to lose their
business and role if they do not comply.

In this context, Leah's points come into focus. You cannot (A) defend the
consumer, and (B) allow a laissez faire attitude to registrars, at the same
time. The Registry (as in the case of Nominet in, admittedly, a ccTLD
context) should take its responsibilities to the consumer seriously, and
should intervene on behalf of the legitimate consumer. THEN let the
registrar pursue normal local legal processes if it objects.

Of course, there are all kinds of variants, and not all registrants are
legitimate. However, it is a reasonable assumption that the vast majority of
registrants are legitimate, and Codes and Contracts should be put in place
to pre-empt many of the problems which ICANN could frankly forsee, so that
these problems are avoided in advance, rather than the consumer having to
try to sort them out after the event.

I am very sceptical about ICANN's priorities and motivations. I am far more
trusting about organisations like Nominet. To be honest, I think that ICANN
will end up doing the USG a vast disservice, because in the end, the rest of
the world will 'localise' the administration of the DNS, mirror the roots a
hundred times, and the outcome will be USG loses control of the internet
(which, of course, I would favour anyway).

In summary: failure of ICANN and the Registries and the Registrars to impose
an industry-wide Code of Conduct and mandatory standards... pathetic and
inexcusable.

These things *can* be achieved. AU shows they can.

It's a question of will.

Yrs,

Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: L. Gallegos <jandl@jandl.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 9:11 PM

> If there is little or no cooperation from registrars, registries should
> have to step in and make corrections to errors as a last resort within a
> reasonable period of time - perhaps days.
>
> Registries are the where the buck stops.  They have the registrations and
> have final control over how the domains perform (TLD server).  As such, if
> there is a dispute where the problem lies with the system or registrar
> error, the registry should have the responsibility of correcting the error
> whether the registrar cooperates or not.
>
> I agree that the initial problem would lie with the registrar, but there
> has to be a fall back to the registry when registrars simply say "no."
>
> 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