ICANN announced that it is now accepting comments for proposed changes to the Registrar Accreditation Agreements, those agreements registrars sign with ICANN which in part, govern registrars conduct.
This is the time that you can send a clear message to ICANN that certain practice of registrars should be outlawed and let them know of any instances of improper conduct on the part of registrars.
Here is what we are going to send off in our comments and strongly suggest you do the same.
ICANN should specifically bar registrars from warehousing domains.
Registrars should not be allowed to take the expired domains of its customers and keep them for themselves.
This practice seems to be barred under the current Registrar Agreement.
Section 3.7.5 states:
Registrars shall register Registered Names to Registered Name Holders only for fixed periods. At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to pay a renewal fee within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration.”
To us extenuating circumstance would require something unusually, specific to a certain domain, rather than thousands of domains a month.
Extenuating circumstances certainly cannot mean simply that the registrar wants the domain for itself and doesn’t want the public to have access to it.
Section 3.7.9 states:
Registrars shall abide by any ICANN adopted specifications or policies prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars.”
However at least one registrar Tucows.com does just this, they just keep the expired domains of their customers that they want to keep.
When domains of Tucows customers expire, Tucows place it in their parking program, they can gauge the traffic and revenue, and then they hand pick which domains they want to retain.
Before Tucows allows expired domains to drop, they handpick the domains they want and they keep them.
Although we think this practice is already prohibited under the registrar agreement, it is being allowed to occur so, a further provision needs to be added to specifically outlaw such conduct.
Moreover, in our comments, we are going to ask ICANN to review to see if such practice is presently allowed and if they determine such practice is not allowed, to order Tucows to return to the pool of available domains, all the domains they have warehoused over the in the past year(s).
If a registrar is allowed to retain each and everyone of the expired domains of its customers the registrar wants, without giving the general public the chance to obtain such names, they will change from a domain registrar to a very large domain holder.
If you want to stop this practice this is your chance to let ICANN know your opinion.
They are asking for it.
To comment on the Registrar Contract please e-mail ICANN at:
raa-consultation@icann.org
You can read the comments that have been posted so far:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-consultation/
We will be posting our comments tommorow.
Please note that the comment period ends on August 4, 2008.
If you miss this chance to let your voice be heard don’t complain if registrars do more of what they want and less of what you need.
I guess I really don’t have a problem with registrars holding back dropping domains.
Imagine if you ran a rental business of some sort. Your customer paid you for your service but then failed to pay for the upcoming year.
Why are you obligated to re-rent that widget to the general public for the same price, especially if demand for widgets has skyrocketed.
Why are you obligated to release it? Are you providing a public, non profit service or are you in business to make money.
Registrars are in the business to make money. Why are they different than any other domain investor or portfolio holder?
Rob,
“Why are you obligated to re-rent that widget to the general public for the same price, especially if demand for widgets has skyrocketed. ”
Answer: They never re-rented for reg fee, they always auctioned off to the highest bidder the names they didn’t keep for their themselves.
“Why are you obligated to release it?”
Answer: The charter given to them by ICANN they have an agreement to abide by. Specifically Section 3.7.9
“Why are they different than any other domain investor or portfolio holder?”
Answer: By becoming an ICANN accredited registrar they entered into an agreement which specifically outlines what a registrar can/can’t do in their endevour to turn a profit.
Specifically, they are prohibited & restricted from warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars.
What’s the probability that Tucows will be forced to relinquish the 150,000 domains they got from warehousing?
Tony,
Who can answer that question?
I know one thing for sure. Nothing happens without speaking up and now we have our chance with ICANN.
NO EXCUSES!
SPEAK UP!!!
Tony
The only thing tell you is if you don’t speak up and try the answer is zero chance.
The Godaddy situation showed what domainer’s can do if they act, complain, do something.
You try your hardest and sleep better at night knowing you have done all you can do.
Rob
As Scott pointed out they are governed by a contract as an ICANN accredited registrar.
Imagine if Net Sol just kept all the domains they wanted starting back in 1995.
There would be no domainers, no industry just Net Sol and their 5 million names.
I mean can the city keep the best tax deeds back and not them go to public auction??
Why is Tucows the only registrar doing it??
Guys,
It’s interesting that ICANN has been letting registrars get away with building up large domain portfolios, cherry picking from the dropped names before the rest went to auction.
Even though it already seems that this was specifically forbidden by the Registrar Agreement.
Why do you think they looked the other way, only to now ask for comments for proposed changes to the Registrar Agreement?
Either it’s coincidence or our voices have been already heard by ICANN and they want us to “formally voice” our outrage.
Koz
Scott
If you read the announcement of ICANN and look at the proposed amendments to the agreement I think you will see there is nothing new being proposed about this issue.
So there really not soliciting comments about this issue.
However since they are looking at the registrar agreement this is the only chance that we will get to have any input about it. Maybe its an issue that no one has brought to their attention in a way that made them look at it and react.
If we can get 50++ responses along the same lines, they would have to pay attention
1.) Tucows is the only registrar warehousing domains for their own portfolio – true or false?
2.) By warehousing domains, Tucows is violating existing ICANN provisions – true or false?
3.) Why isn’t ICANN enforcing the already existent provisions? Why go through this commenting BS? They need a public outcry to do their job correctly?
4.) I’ll submit my 2 cents but the whole structure of ICANN needs to be redone. It’s too much like the wild, wild west.
Tony
1.) Tucows is the only registrar warehousing domains for their own portfolio – true or false?
True as far as I know
2.) By warehousing domains, Tucows is violating existing ICANN provisions – true or false?
My opinion is yes. they probably have a provision in the terms and service with all registrants where the registrants agree that Tucows can take over the domain if they let it expire.
3.) Why isn’t ICANN enforcing the already existent provisions? Why go through this commenting BS? They need a public outcry to do their job correctly?
I don’t know. Why couldn’t the US government get water to Hurricane victims?
People working for large organizations without profit incentives aren’t usually the most efficient people.
4.) I’ll submit my 2 cents but the whole structure of ICANN needs to be redone. It’s too much like the wild, wild west
I agree to a large extent but that is not happening
Baby Steps, Baby Steps.
Thanks for that, Mike.
Considering that ICANN is comprised of the most efficient people, my comment will be simple and based on these points in our posts. I
MHB,
There are other registrars doing it too. Melbourne It is another http://www.melbourneit.com.au
I was going after a few domains that were dropping from their registrar a few months back, and they ended up keeping them. AustinYellowpages.com was one of them.
Steve
Yes I see what you mean, guess you could use domain tools to figure out how many they got.
Do you think they keep all domains or pick certain ones to not let drop?
Steve
Found this thread on melbourneit.com.au
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/archive/index.php/t-600224.html
MHB,
I picked up a handful from them back then. They keep the at least 50% of the good stuff IMO with lots of traffic. The names I have gotten from them do have traffic about 10-20 uniques a day during that time period.
So I am guessing that AustinYellowpages.com was getting anywhere from 50+ uniques a day. They let some great names go, but these did not have any traffic over 20 uniques a day. There were 5 names in total they kept me from getting or at least battling for back in november.
So I only scan for names every now and then from that registrar. Bottomline is they keep the good stuff from my experiences. Working in stealth mode.
Ok
we should them also include them in our comments to ICANN
However do not forget that Tucows admitted to the practice.
Yes,
Sounds like a plan. Very true with Tucows. But this is plain sight that the registrar owns this name and many others that have dropped, once again abusing their position.
What I worry about is ICANN not listening to the voice of the domaining community. How have past discussions gone with people voicing their concerns?
Steve
I know there was a loud outcry the last time the Verisign contract was up for renewal.
There was a provision that might allow domains to be premium priced like .tv names are.
Hundreds of people complained and that provision went away.
However in general it maybe fair to say ICANN does not love domainers, although we by in large support them.
register.com warehouses expired domain names – this is a fact.
Jerzz
You have some examples??
Mike,
I think we should have one letter we can all send to ICANN.
Rob,
Your analogy doesn’t hold water.
Domains are a public resource that is basically rented/leased.
Registrars are in charge of managing the resource. Of course they should be allowed to make a profit by charging fees for managing the resource.
However, unlike the rental company of your example, they do not OWN the resource, nor should they be allowed to unfairly compete against their customers.
This needs to be ironclad in the RAA, and any ill-gotten domains MUST be released to the auction pool.
Pat
Agree
You should put that in your e-mail to ICANN
Our’s went off this morning.
The warehousing problem is not restricted to registrars who appropriate the expired domains of their customers. It could be argued that it also includes registrars that are their own customers. Perhaps the only way this will be resolved is by a clearer and verifiable separation of registrar and registrant. However ICANN seems more concerned with reaching a consensus than making decisions. It took these people years to deal with the highly visible Domain Tasting problem. Perhaps in 2014, they may get around to addressing the warehousing issue.
John
We can only do what we can do.
If we can get 50+ comments posted on this issue, maybe ICANN will act.
As I said before all you can do it try your hardest to get these types of bodies to make good decisions and take action where action is needed.
So far today there are 4 comments posted where yesterday there were none.
Great post – Interesting to the POINT response.
Domain names should NOT be allowed to be stored by a particular accredited register as they do NOT belong to them.
If a particular domain name expires they should be released so someone can register the domain name (with an accredited domain name register).
ICANN should ENFORCE the rules upon accredited registers and if those accredited Company’s do NOT follow the rules the ICANN accreditation should be voided and the company should be fined (NOT small fines $1 million at least).
At this stage it looks to me that ICANN lets any Company become an accredited body as long as they pay the $fee and then the Company’s can do what they like – that should be stopped.
If ICANN can not or will not enforce the rules then the whole Executive Management should be fired and TRUE goal oriented People should be given the change to lead ICANN.
True Leaders solve problems – idiots create them
Guys
Our comment has now been posted by ICANN
If you guys need some help or direction with preparing your own comments you can check our out at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-consultation/msg00046.html
Please use your own thoughts and verbiage as your comment will be more effective is you do.
Don’t forget the comment is coming up in just over a month and so far there is only 5 comments posted on this issue.
I costs you nothing but a little time to make your voice heard.
If you chose to remain silent then you do so at the risk of your own interest
Just saw that my comment has been posted as well.
argh – it went through with html formatting.
Hopefully they’ll remove that and post the version I just sent without formatting.
Anyway… Now’s the time to speak up folks!
If you derive any income from domaining, and particularly if you’re bidding on dropped names – this sleazy, unfair practice is hurting YOU.
Including their branded domain names, I guess? What if they have products or services to launch as well?
However, I do agree whoever is interested in this ought to speak up.
David
Registrars can own all the domains they want.They have to do you like or me go out and buy them.
They cannot however just take the expired domains from their customers.
Pat
Saw your post.
Good job
Here’s another place for users to voice their concerns with Registrar non-compliance with the RAA:
InterNIC Complainant Form
http://reports.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi
“By completing this form, Internet users can initiate help from ICANN’s Support Services in filing a grievance concerning a nonresponsive registrar or about enforcement of an alleged violation of the terms listed in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). ”
I believe that Tucows is clearly violating the current RAA. We should all let ICANN know that they should hold Tucows to the terms of the RAA regarding Warehousing and Speculating (3.7.9) and Cancelling Expired Names (3.7.5).
Here’s the grievance that I sent them:
————————————————————
I respectfully request that ICANN fulfill its obligations under the RAA section 2.3.2:
2.3.2 not unreasonably restrain competition and to the extent feasible promote and encourage robust competition
Registrar Tucows Inc. is currently in violation of the RAA sections 3.7.5 and 3.7.9
By their own admission they are appropriating for their own portfolio 6000 to 8000 expired names PER MONTH instead of cancelling them and releasing them to the available pool as specified in section 3.7.5 of the RAA.
The link below is a transcript of a Tucows Inc. investor conference call with their CEO/President Elliot Noss in which he states:
“We believe we are one of the leading portfolios in the world. Please remember we pick up 6000 to 8000 more names each month from expiring domains. We made the decision two years ago to acquire expiring names that we believe add value.”
http://seekingalpha.com/article/63693-tucows-inc-q4-2007-earnings-call-transcriptsource=yahoo&page=-1
Further, they are engaged in Warehousing and Speculation as prohibited by section 3.7.9 of the RAA
For further evidence see this comment by Tucows Domain Portfolio General Manager, Bill Sweetman:
Q. Does being a registrar give you the right to keep domains that its customers fail to renew?
A. Yes.
Full context here:
http://namebio.com/NameBioBlog/2008/04/17/tucows-admits-to-warehousing-domains/
ICANN recently passed a resolution designed to discourage domain tasting but Tucows Inc. is not only engaged in tasting expired names they are then appropriating the most profitable and valuable expired names for their portfolio instead of cancelling them and releasing them to the available pool as specified in the RAA.
Presumably they are paying ICANN .20 per name for these extremely valuable assets and thats their entire cost for the domain name in perpetuity since they are their own Registrar.
This is clearly a fox in charge of the henhouse scenario which is anti-competitive, unethical, and grossly unfair to both other registrars which are abiding by the terms of the RAA and the general public. Registrars are duly compensated for their efforts by registration fees, to allow them to speculate in the resource they are charged with managing is a breach of ICANN’s mandate under section 2.3.2.
Please perform your enforcement role with regard to the RAA by forcing these unethical Registrars to cease this anti-competitive activity immediately, and return ill-gotten names to the available pool.
Thank You,
Patrick Quinn
Mike,
I just sent an email to ICANN.
I think this discussion should stay on top of your blog where people can see it on a daily basis.
Early this morning I HAD to show to the public further proof of Tucows warehousing domain names. As I expected a reply from Tucows, Ken clearly states the domains I expected as being warehoused are being kept by Tucows (warehoused). See my post here and Comment # 2. http://www.dotweekly.com/2008/07/12/could-you-explain-tucows/
Jamie Zoch
DotWeekly.com
Jamie
I for one appreciate all of your reporting on this situation.
Now if we can get more people to express their outrage to ICANN maybe something will change.
There are about 15 comments up on warehousing right now:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-consultation/
I’m baffled that more domainers are not chiming in on this, all it takes a 2 minute email to raa-consultation@icann.org to potentially put an end to this garbage.
People screamed about the 60 day rule, and ICANN put an end to it, so don’t think that they won’t respond given enough public outcry.