Who owns the 2 name admin companies ?
why do I ask ? If we set up new rules to say that registrars can't own domains or hoard the domains, all that will happen is the registrars will create a separate entity like Name Admin has done . . . then what happens ? More complaints and then ICANN makes a rule that the majority owner of a registrar can't own multiple domains even in a separate company? and then they work around that barrier and become a minority owner with his siblings as co-owners and then we ban the siblings and so on and on and on it goes.
Thus my comment on how do we actually police the rule if we set up the rule and how far do we go with the rule . Believe me I don't like the tucows stuff and they AREN'T alone. . . I think there's a much bigger registrar at it. Hard to prove though. Arent privacy services wonderful?
I think the solution is simple.
At the end of expiry, have the names transferred to an entity owned by an independent party like ICANN or whoever.
If the registrant wants to renew, then he pays a renewal fee plus the transfer fee to a registrar of his choice.
If the name's still not renewed after a certain period, then ICANN can hold a 3 day auction on the name (public or private auction).
If the name is not renewed and has no bidders, then the name goes through the delete phase.
What gives the registrar the rights to hold-on to expired names anyway, and renew them for themselves?
__________________ ParkingPanel hasn't paid me since February. Check it out here Parking Income +150 days and still not paid. Check it out here ParkingPanel owes me more than USD100 since Feb 2008. Check it out here
Make sure to keep it respectful for maximum effectiveness. Tell ICANN to change the language of section 3.7.9 of the Registration Accreditation Agreement to:
"Absolutely prohibit domain name speculation and warehousing by registrars"
That's exactly what they're required to do according to the RAA:
3. REGISTRAR OBLIGATIONS.
3.1 Obligations to Provide Registrar Services. During the Term of this Agreement, Registrar agrees that it will operate as a registrar for each TLD for which it is accredited by ICANN in accordance with this Agreement.
And does that say to whom it's obligated or required to provide services to?
Because if they're required to offer that to end users like us, then you ought
to tell that to Amazon, Google and Microsoft.
While at it, read the last 2 posts from this thread:
I'm not sure I get your point. If it's that there are many registrars who are abusing both the letter and the spirit of the RAA, I wholeheartedly agree.
If you're defending this crap... not so much.
The point of the thread is to get domainers and anyone else with an interest in acquiring domain names with a modicum of fairness, to speak up and put some public pressure on ICANN to tighten the language of the Registration Accreditation Agreement to stop this anti-competitive nonsense.
So you don't think it's OK for a registrar to renew (re-register) any domain in their own name, but you think it's OK for a registrar to renew (re-register) any domain into their auction partners name, just to let them auction off the domain name to the highest bidder?
central, you make an excellent point! If the name has expired it should be dropped as you suggest.
In fact, I would much prefer an auction system that was not run by any registrar. This could be a great way for ICANN to create some revenue for themselves.
But I'm more concerned with the skimming by the registrar where suckers like us never get a chance at the names which the registrar has pre-tasted and transfers the registration to themselves.
What if you find a domain name scheduled to delete in a couple of days. You contact the registrant and make an agreement to acquire the domain name. The domain name is renewed and you're the new registrant. Would that be acceptable?
Everyone has the opportunity to make an offer to a current owner of a domain, I don't think anyone here would argue they shouldn't - I certainly wouldn't.
But that's a lot different than a registrar grabbing every name that is registered with them that expires, then tasting the name (parking it to see if it's profitable), or evaluating it for obvious commercial value and keeping it for themselves if they like it.
I think the only cost to the registrar is the 20 cents they pay ICANN, since they are the registrar (in other words they're not even paying 6 or 7 bucks like you or I).
This is a rigged game that's anti-competitive, IMHO.
The fact that no registrar representative is chiming in on this thread that's been stickied for a few weeks should tell you pretty clearly that they sure don't want to talk about it in public -- because it's indefensible.
I have to say I don't see any big differences here. When you register a domain name with one of these (often very cheap) registrars, you also agree that if you don't transfer out your domain name and, regardless of many warnings and notices, choose not to renew your domain name, your registrar, or a partner of your registrar, may free of charge acquire the domain name from you. It's not in any way an unfair agreement in my opinion. If you don't like it feel free to use another registrar who most likely is pretty expensive.
If you don't see the difference between making an offer for a domain to a private user, and registrars skimming hundreds of thousands of names at 20 cents each, I don't know what to tell you.
I think most of the folks bidding on the leftover garbage names that do get sent to auction by these guys might beg to differ, though.
OK, let us just assume you figure out some clever way to be able to stop registrars making an agreement with each registrant to acquire their domains at no cost if they choose not to renew. Everyone else, not being a registrar, will be able to make such an agreement it seems.
Anyway, most domain names will now be deleted. What will happen? All valuable domains will, as soon as they are deleted, be registered by the same pool of registrars. These registrars have partnered up with Snapnames, Pool, NameJet and so on. So all these domains will find their way to the same auctions but not one of these domain names will keep their age.
All Registrars are governed by the Registration Accreditation Agreement (RAA). If ICANN clarifies that agreement to explicitly forbid domain name warehousing and speculation, the registrar either follows the agreement or loses their ICANN accreditation.
The RAA is currently up for public comment until August 4th (see links above), if enough people who have a vested interest in this (like any domainer who bids in dropped names auctions) will take 2 minutes and send an email, this garbage might just be stopped.
If that happens, domainers will have a much more level playing field.
If I own a registrar, will I not be able to register any domains not related to domain name registering? What about my wife or my father? Will they be able to register domain names?
If I hold 30% of a registrar and 5% of a company holding domain names. What will happen? Will ICANN delete the domain names the company holds or will they demand I sell my shares? Will ICANN take away the accreditation? What will happen to the shareholders holding 70% of the shares?
If I buy some shares in public traded Marchex Inc. Then I also buy some shares in public traded Verisign Inc . Will all domains belonging to Marchex Inc be deleted? Just because I own a couple of shares in both companies? Will Verisign loose their accreditation?
What if I have some money in a mutual fund and they have invested in Google Inc? They are accredited. Will I not be able to register any domains? If I do, will Google loose their accreditation?
Registrars will be able to own all the names they want, they'll just have to bid on them like anyone else - not just taste them and then appropriate the valuable ones without dropping them to the pool.
If you own a registrar, then no, you shouldn't be in the domain name speculation business, registrars have an obvious unfair advantage. That's why there's already language in the RAA talking about speculation and warehousing. Registrars are currently pretending it's not there, so ICANN needs to clarify it and enforce it.
When deleted domain names are up for auction at one of the public dropcatchers there's a registrar who's accreditation was used to dropcatch the domain name in question. The auction service and the registrar then splits the revenue from any sold domain.
If any changes, like the once you're asking for, is implemented, there are no guarantees the auction houses will keep on like they do. I'm sure many registrars will start catching the best domains in their own name, for keeps. Why would they catch a great keyword.com just to auction it off and only get a cut, when they can keep the domain without sharing it? Just like they do today, with the only difference being that the domain name actually drops.
You're talking about section 3.7.9 in ICANNs RAA. I know you've already learned this section doesn't prohibit or require anything from John Berryhill, but I think Dave Zan sums it up very nicely here:
Well, that sounds good, but how are you going to enforce such a rule? You have to draw the line somewhere. I'm pretty sure you don't think it's fair that Google Inc looses their accreditation just because BuyDomains.com acquires a couple of shares in Google, do you?
It will always be possible to work around rules like this. A registrar holding company will of course have different companies for holding domain names and being the registrar. If needed ownership can be hidden using several corporations in various jurisdictions. In the end a change in rules/regulations will only make it harder for a normal company to play within all these rules.
Your arguments seem designed to obfuscate instead of elucidate.
The issues are simple:
ICANN makes the rules, if they find a registrar in breach of the agreement they can, and have, pulled accreditations. Your contention that the registrars can always get around this is just plain bogus.
When a name expires, it should be dropped to the available pool, that's already specified clearly in the RAA 3.7.5.
Registrars should be explicitly prohibited by the RAA from speculating in domain names. 3.7.9 needs words to the effect that "registrars are prohibited from warehousing and speculation in domain names" because some registrars are ignoring the intent.
