As you will recall back in July ICANN called for comments on the revision of its contracts with ICANN accredited registrars.
We lobbied on this board, that it was an opportunity for domainers to protest the practice whereby registrars hold on to the expired domains of their own customers and keep whatever they want without allowing them to drop to the general public.
At the time many said this was not a valid comment in light of the contracts being reviewed since the contract already had a provision allowing ICANN to make a rule regarding this practice and just hadn’t done so.
However my argument was that once the some changes to the contract are opened for comment, then the entire contract becomes open for comment.
Today the ICANN, Chief Registrar Liaison Tim Cole and ICANN’s general manager of public participation, Kieren McCarthy, release a report of the comment period, including its recommendations.
They noted that “A total of 29 distinct submissions were received”…..Eighteen of the comments solely expressed objections to registrars “warehousing” domain names upon expiration and made no other observations or comments about proposed changes to the RAA”
Our comments were one of these 18.
They went on to conclude that “warehousing should be addressed”
Good.
For those who thought it did no good to comment, you were wrong. However its the fact that over 1/2 of all comments received, were directly on this point, that got ICANN’s attention.
We do not think that registrars, most notably Tucows.com, should be allowed to build it’s own portfolio, now numbering in the hundreds of thousands of domains, off the back of their own customers.
This practice must be stopped before every major registrar follows suit and keep the best domains from ever reaching the public.
The ICANN committee made these the following additional Recommendations:
Better definitions of monetary sanctions and when they apply;
Registrars should be required to disclose any deviation from a standard set ofcontract terms to enhance consumer understanding and choice;
Requirement for registrars under compliance review to refrain from using logo or seal;
Requirements should be established to ensure that services paid for by registrants are actually provided (e.g., multi-year registrations);
Registrars should be prevented from changing Whois information because of a dispute with the registrant;
ICANN should limit disclaimers by registrars that are not in compliance;
Should require standardized Acceptable Use Policy in registration agreements;
Enforce and make public results of dispute mechanisms;
Require all registrars to offer DNSSEC.
Finally, ICANN should undertake a separate review of the accreditation process itself with results made public.
Staff will now proceed to consult with the GNSO on the proposed amendments, public comment and implementation options so that the GNSO can advise the Board.
I think you will see a lot of push back from registrars on this issue.
I can lean either way.
1. Registrars should release unpaid names to the public in an open, standardized manner.
2. Registrars should have the freedom to catch their own drops just like companies who keep or sell off unclaimed property.
It will be interesting to see how they handle the issue. There are some good names in Moniker’s and Register.com’s unpaid names departments.
DomainTools whois tools says Role, Moniker Accounting owns about 6000 domains with Moniker Unpaid Domain Names Department as the whois owner.
Rob
Unless ICANN puts a stop to it, there would be no reason to expect any registrar to release any domain worth a damm to the public.
I certainly have no problem with a registrar bidding against domainers in a fair and opened auction system to acquire domains, including ones at their own registry, however to simply allow them to pick the cream off the top and keep the domains for their own account seems to an abusive situation.
In the “domain names as real estate” metaphor what would this practice be equivalent to?
Domain name as property, lot, etc and domain registrar as what? Notary Public? Lawyer? Land Title Office? Municipality (property tax default)?
Is not paying the reg fee the same as not paying the property tax? The same as defaulting on the mortgage? Or is the whole thing more of a lease?
So if someone doesn’t pay their property tax the lawyer who handled the transaction gets to keep it? The mortgage company would get to sell it however they want. The tax department would presumably have to auction it.
Would the tax department be able to keep the proceeds of the auction over and above what it was owed? Would the mortgage company?
When I think about those type of things I wonder how it would be if the domain owner (who didn’t renew) had a certain amount of rights where auctioned off domains would give the last registrant the excess money raised from the auction, much as the proceeds from a property sold by a bank for mortgage default might be handled.
This will probably take care of itself though as the companies that auction off “soon to be expired domains” get some traction. Maybe. Just thinking about it and typing as I do.
Greg
I think your analogy has merit.
In your example I think registration fees are most like property taxes.
If you don’t pay your property taxes, the county auctions off a tax certificate, which may lead the the winner actually acquiring the house, if the taxes remain unpaid.
So following this example would anyone have a problem with the tax collector holding back certain properties from the auction market for their own account, the cream of the crop?
No, there would be public outrage.
Fair enough.
Keep in mind I can go either way on this. To argue in favor of registrars keeping any unpaid names they want…
What if domains are like post office boxes? The box holder rents the box from the post office. When he or she does not renew, the box idle or available.
Say the post office wants to raise rates (a higher sale price) in a month so they do not want to lease out the box because they can get more money next month.
Similar? Maybe.
How about a pawn shop scenario. The pawn shop owner gives money in return for merch. The merch owner never comes back to claim the merch.
Is the pawn shop obligated to sell it to the public or can he keep the merch?
Gray area if you ask me. I suppose that’s why ICANN needs to review the pros and cons.
Mike I think you are starting a fight where you may be punching yourself in the nose.
How is it ok for a domainer who “warehouses” to become a registrar but it’s not ok for a registrar to become a domainer and warehouse ?
Rob – there are probably many analogies but real estate in general comes closest. In all of my musing/brooding about which if any metaphors could be applied to domain names I always come back to real estate one as the closest. It may well be that the post-office analogy works better with domain names than does real estate but certainly most people are better versed in real estate goings on and processes/laws than they are post offices – so usually I try for the real estate one.
The thing is that it is obviously a wrong thing to do, I’m not sure that I have a valid chain of reasoning that culminates in a conclusion but I know wrong when I see it. It may even be that it is wrong on so many levels that trying to tie one of the evils down without getting distracted becomes impossible.
While there are undoubtedly many analogies all must share one thing and that is there must be an element of uniqueness to it. No replacements. No substitutions. Pawn shop analogies don’t cut it.
I do see though how leasing property is a closer match though than buying it as far as real estate property metaphors go. Domain registration isn’t like something you make payments on, and it isn’t tax but it is like a lease.
The problem is that the post-office/pawnshop/whatever analogies have is that there aren’t enough valid metaphors for domain names. You don’t “build” a post office box but you do a website.
You aren’t concerned with “traffic” as a concept at a pawn shop but you are with a website. There is little value to be gained by finding an analogy with only one obvious metaphor contained within.
The domains as property analogy has many rich metaphors that provide real insight once the isomorphic frame has been defined. Improvements, billboards, prestige, location, neighbors – all are valid metaphors that can be applied to gain insight into areas with no existing “cases”.
One area where a good metaphor can be useful is in real estate law, to try to settle the domain registrar problem by relying on pawn shop law or existing post-office box decisions would be fruitless – hence the attraction of the real estate metaphor to me as applies to domain registration.
Greg B,
I understand but you say “You don’t “build” a post office box but you do a website.”
We are not talking about websites here. We are talking about domains.
Again, I can go either way on this and it does need to be addressed openly. Whether it ends up being voluntary compliance to new standards or mandatory, we’ll have to see.
Then the question becomes “What about the registrars who don’t put the names into an unpaid names department?
How are we going to know all the domains that are being held by registrars?
Gets messy quick so I hope ICANN does address it.
A Po Box has no value, and isn’t a saleable commodity
Good point but I’ll be PO Box 1 in Boston is worth something.
What about the fact that registries hold back domains (think .mobi and .me) for release to the public so they can sell them at auction for a much higher price than the reg fee?
How about registries that hold back geo domains? .info has a lot of geodomains that they won’t release.
Lots of questions. That’s why I haven’t made up my mind yet.
Adam
For me there is no problem with a registrar owning domains, however, I do think that taking a domain away from a customer and taking the ownership of the domain after it expires, is a practice that should be stopped.
Other than taking their customers domains without giving the general public a chance at them, they can own as many domains as they like.
They need to get their domains the same like anyone else, register them, buy them as the high bidder in a drop auction, tradeshow auctions.
They just shouldn’t be allowed to keep other peoples domains.
“They should be able to just keep other peoples domains.”
I’m sure you meant shouldn’t. I am more concerned that the stirring of the nest about warehousing will lead to more griping from other constituents who’ll gripe that any form of warehousing is unpalatable. A clearer terminology might help in this case so as not to have the fight turn back on us or confuse the layman.
I think it should be clear that the disagreement is with registrars taking ownership on expiring domains NOT necessarily warehousing (or owning multiple names) bit. This concern, which I agree with you on, is that registrars are retaining names that should be re-released in a fair manner (which will likely lead back to resurrection discussions of namestore or WLS I’m sure) . Being the registrar does not entitle them to first dibs when the name has expired.
Adam
Corrected, thanks.
“””””I think it should be clear that the disagreement is with registrars taking ownership on expiring domains NOT necessarily warehousing (or owning multiple names) bit. This concern, which I agree with you on, is that registrars are retaining names that should be re-released in a fair manner (which will likely lead back to resurrection discussions of namestore or WLS I’m sure) . Being the registrar does not entitle them to first dibs when the name has expired.””””
Exactly
“Being the registrar does not entitle them to first dibs when the name has expired.”
Why not though?
It was their customer. Why are they obligated to the public?
What if a domain registrar picked up 100% of all of their customers’ domains that have not been re-registered?
The domain was taken out of the public pool when the customer hand registered it. Why is the registrar obligated to release it back to the public?
Careful what you wish for…
All ICANN has to do is mandate deletions after failure to renew and we are all stuck feeding the VGRS WLS beast, which is far worse than where we are now.
I do agree that Registrars should, at the very least, be obligated to put ALL expiring names on thier tag through some sort of publicly available auction though. This grabbing them immediately after expiry and simply making them disappear (TUCOWS?) is complete Bull Shit.
Rob
At the moment each registrar can do whatever the hell they want with expired domains. Keep the domain, auction them off, send them to an auction house for them to auction them off, or drop them.
I do not believe it to be in the best interest of domainers or the general public to have domain registrars doing whatever the feel like, if you do then support the status quo.
I do not
No. I don’t support the status quo. I’m just saying that the situation is complicated. Just making conversation.
I’m glad ICANN will take a look.
Thanks for the room to discuss this.
Domain name warehousing SHOULD not be allowed.
If a domain name expires then someone else SHOULD be allowed to register it.
Warehousing domain names would mean that the domain can be kept by a registrar and that domain name registrar would be able to sell it and cash in on the domain name if the demand is there – they are already making good money by selling domain names as accredited domain name registrars – what would stop this kind of so called accredited ICANN domain name registrars warehousing millions of domain names and then resell them in 2-10 years time via auctions – I think this SHOULD be banned 100% and if a accredited ICANN domain name registrar warehouses the domain names ICANN SHOULD take away the accreditation and fully blacklist the Company and all it’s management from EVER gaining accreditation again – RULES have to be set and followed for ICANN to keep it’s integrity and not lose face
It’s about time!
It appears as though Moniker’s Unpaid Names department may have changed.
The “unpaid names department” recently renewed a domain they picked up from a non-paying client and now the whois has changed from the unpaid names department to:
Registrant [1231369]:
Admin, – admin@overseedomainmanagement.com
OS Domain Holdings VIII, LLC
c/o Oversee Domain Management, LLC 515 S. Flower Street
Suite 4400
Los Angeles
CA
90071
So I guess they took it out of the unpaid names department and moved it into their portfolio.