DomainNames
Top Contributor
The auDA Policy Review Panel Focus Group Information Paper dated 20th February 2019 on the auDA website appears to be a deliberate continued misrepresentation of facts and unsubstantiated claims to mislead focus groups votes and then stakeholders.
The auDA PRP misquoted related auDA Policy https://www.auda.org.au/policies/ and auDA / ICANN Consensus Policy is a very serious matter which also risks auDA’s compliance to required ICANN contracts and agreements.
Where is the auDA Policy the auDA PRP is quoting exists now relating to Resale and Warehousing exactly? They are forgeting to include Registrar and Registry in their questions, claims, statements etc.
Policy says this for NON REGISTRAR, NON REGISTRY, NON auDA / NON SPONSORSHIP Org Registrants https://www.auda.org.au/policies/index-of-published-policies/2012/2012-04/
Number of domain names
6. There is no restriction on the number of domain names that may be licensed by a registrant.
1. Below is a direct quote “5.1.2 Resale and warehousing” of what must be a deliberate continued misrepresentation by the auDA Policy Review Panel who have chosen again to leave out the words “Registries” and “Registrars” and not quoting the factual auDA policy / auDA/ ICANN Consensus policy in full in any consultation groups, papers or meetings I am aware of.
a. https://www.auda.org.au/news/call-f...es-and-implementation-of-direct-registration/
b. https://www.auda.org.au/assets/Uploads/auDA-PRP-Focus-Group-Information-Paper-20190220.pdf
2. Why is this an important policy for ICANN and auDA to meet and not misquote or misinterpret? Why is it on agreements between ICANN and bodies like auDA, Registry and Registrars?
3. auDA and the auDA PRP have an obligation to all parties including government, the Ministers, DoCA, ICANN, existing and potential .au Domain Name Registrant Consumers etc to be factual and not misrepresent information in papers, surveys, policy, consultations, statements, media releases etc
4. This is the real factual auDA/ ICANN Consensus Policy taken directly from attached publicly available correspondence between Bruce Tonkin and ICANN:
· (B) prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registries or registrars;
5. See the attached email evidence between ICANN and Bruce Tonkin ex Melbourne IT/ Currently working for auDA https://www.linkedin.com/in/btonkin/
6. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ra-agreement-2009-05-21-en
10. https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-know...ng-those-up-to-resell-them-at-premium-pricing
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name_warehousing
13. https://www.domainregistration.com.au/news/domain-name -warehousing.php
The auDA PRP misquoted related auDA Policy https://www.auda.org.au/policies/ and auDA / ICANN Consensus Policy is a very serious matter which also risks auDA’s compliance to required ICANN contracts and agreements.
Where is the auDA Policy the auDA PRP is quoting exists now relating to Resale and Warehousing exactly? They are forgeting to include Registrar and Registry in their questions, claims, statements etc.
Policy says this for NON REGISTRAR, NON REGISTRY, NON auDA / NON SPONSORSHIP Org Registrants https://www.auda.org.au/policies/index-of-published-policies/2012/2012-04/
Number of domain names
6. There is no restriction on the number of domain names that may be licensed by a registrant.
1. Below is a direct quote “5.1.2 Resale and warehousing” of what must be a deliberate continued misrepresentation by the auDA Policy Review Panel who have chosen again to leave out the words “Registries” and “Registrars” and not quoting the factual auDA policy / auDA/ ICANN Consensus policy in full in any consultation groups, papers or meetings I am aware of.
a. https://www.auda.org.au/news/call-f...es-and-implementation-of-direct-registration/
b. https://www.auda.org.au/assets/Uploads/auDA-PRP-Focus-Group-Information-Paper-20190220.pdf
“5.1.2 Resale and warehousing
It is proposed that stricter controls be put in place to ensure that domain names are not being registered solely for the purpose of resale or warehousing (ie. holding a large collection of domain licences for future resale when they become more valuable).
It is proposed that stricter controls be put in place to ensure that domain names are not being registered solely for the purpose of resale or warehousing (ie. holding a large collection of domain licences for future resale when they become more valuable).
- What are your views on the recommendation to retain and strengthen the resale and warehousing prohibition rule?
- What are your views on the proposal to strengthen this prohibition by introducing a list of factors indicating that a domain name is likely to have been registered primarily for resale or warehousing, thereby shifting the onus to the registrant to demonstrate that is not in fact the case? What factors should the Panel recommend be used?”
- ” Domain Name Agreements between the U.S. Department of Commerce, Network Solutions, Inc., and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) (September 28, 1999)
- “prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars;”
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/doc_nsi_icann_19990928.pdf
au ccTLD Sponsorship Agreement (Signed 25 October 2001)
ICANN's agreements with accredited registrars and with generic top-level domain (gTLD) registry operators require compliance with various specifically stated procedures and also with "consensus policies." Sponsors and registry operators of sponsored top-level domains (TLDs) may be required to comply with consensus policies in some instances."
- https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/au-2012-02-25-en
- https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registrars/consensus-policies-en
- https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/advisories-policies-2017-10-04-en
ICANN's agreements with accredited registrars and with generic top-level domain (gTLD) registry operators require compliance with various specifically stated procedures and also with "consensus policies." Sponsors and registry operators of sponsored top-level domains (TLDs) may be required to comply with consensus policies in some instances."
4. This is the real factual auDA/ ICANN Consensus Policy taken directly from attached publicly available correspondence between Bruce Tonkin and ICANN:
· (B) prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registries or registrars;
5. See the attached email evidence between ICANN and Bruce Tonkin ex Melbourne IT/ Currently working for auDA https://www.linkedin.com/in/btonkin/
http://www.gnso.icann.org/correspondence/cubberley-to-tonkin-25aug06.pdf>
“Memo to GNSO re: Consensus Policies
27 September 2006
Page 1 of 3
Bruce,
Thank you for your inquiry concerning the Policies for Contractual Conditions PDP ("PDP-Feb06") Task Force Chair’s request for clarification on the effect of GNSO policy recommendations on ICANN's existing registry agreements.
Specifically, Task Force Chair Maureen Cubberley asked: “Given the existence of ICANN by-law annex A Clause 13, would Council please confirm to the Task Force that should the Task Force's recommendations lead to Consensus Policy (as described in Clause 13) that differs from contract wording, then all current gTLDs contracts would indeed be changed retroactively as a result? If not, the Task Force is looking for guidance on how to proceed.” <http://www.gnso.icann.org/correspondence/cubberley-to-tonkin-25aug06.pdf>
Unfortunately, without knowing what the consensus policy or policies might emerge from the current PDP, any answer to this question would be speculative and cannot be answered definitively. It is possible for the GNSO to recommend, and the Board to approve, consensus policy that would change all existing gTLD registry contracts, but that is dependent on both the policy and the impacted contracts, which have some variations between registries.
Since there has been no uniform language on consensus polices included in each ICANN registry agreement, this has been the subject of bilateral negotiations between ICANN and each registry operator and sponsor. ICANN's GTLD registry and registrar agreements provide that under certain circumstances policies that are recommended by the GNSO and adopted by the Board can create new binding obligations on registries and registrars. All of ICANN's current GTLD agreements include limitations on the topics that may be the subject of such binding new obligations, and the procedures that must be followed in order to create them….Example, Section 3.1(b) of the .JOBS Registry Agreement (as an example of the framework for ICANN's recent registry agreements) <http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/jobs/jobs-agreement.htm#3.1>provides as follows:
[3.1](b) Consensus Policies.
(i) At all times during the term of this Agreement and subject to the terms hereof, Registry Operator will fully comply with and implement all Consensus Policies found at http://www.icann.org/general/consensus-policies.htm, as of the Effective Date and as may in the future be developed and adopted in accordance with ICANN's Bylaws and as set forth below.
(ii) "Consensus Policies" are those specifications or policies established (1) pursuant to the procedure set forth in ICANN's Bylaws and due process, and (2) covering those topics listed in Section 3.1(b)(iv) below. The Consensus Policy development process and procedure set forth in ICANN's Bylaws may be revised from time to time “in accordance with ICANN's Bylaws, and any Consensus Policy that is adopted through such a revised process and covering those topics listed in Section 3.1(b)(iv) below shall be considered a Consensus Policy for purposes of this Agreement.
(iii) For all purposes under this Agreement, the policies identified at http://www.icann.org/general/consensus-policies.htm shall be treated in the same manner and have the same effect as "Consensus Policies."
(iv) Consensus Policies and the procedures by which they are developed shall be designed to produce, to the extent possible, a consensus of Internet stakeholders. Consensus Policies shall relate to one or more of the following: (1) issues for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate interoperability, Security and/or Stability of the Internet or DNS; (2) functional and performance specifications for the provision of Registry Services (as defined in Section 3.1(d)(iii) below); (3) Security and Stability of the registry database for the TLD; (4) registry policies reasonably necessary to implement Consensus Policies relating to registry operations or registrars; or (5) resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names). Such categories of issues referred to in the preceding sentence shall include, without limitation:
(A) principles for allocation of registered names in the TLD (e.g., first-come, first-served, timely renewal, holding period after expiration);
(B) prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registries or registrars;
(C) reservation of registered names in the TLD that may not be registered initially or that may not be renewed due to reasons reasonably related to (a) avoidance of confusion among or misleading of users, (b) intellectual property, or (c) the technical management of the DNS or the Internet (e.g., establishment of reservations of names from registration);
(D) maintenance of and access to accurate and up-to-date information concerning domain name registrations;
(E) procedures to avoid disruptions of domain name registration due to suspension or termination of operations by a registry operator or a registrar, including procedures for allocation of responsibility for serving registered domain names in a TLD affected by such a suspension or termination; and
(F) resolution of disputes regarding whether particular parties may register or maintain registration of particular domain names.
(v) Registry Operator shall be afforded a reasonable period of time following notice of the establishment of a Consensus Policy or Temporary Specifications or Policies in which to comply with such policy or specification, taking into account any urgency involved.
The .JOBS registry operator (Employ Media) therefore has agreed in advance to follow any ICANN "Consensus Polices", which are defined as polices that are developed pursuant to the procedure set forth in the ICANN Bylaws and which relate to the categories of issues specified in the agreement, e.g. prohibitions on speculation in domain names by registries, maintenance of and access to "WHOIS" data, resolution of disputes regarding registrations, etc. The .JOBS registry operator accordingly would not be obligated to comply with any ICANN policy that is not developed according to the policy-development procedure specified in the Bylaws or that does not relate to one of the limited topics (the so-called "picket fence") for Consensus Policies.
Other ICANN registry agreements and the Registrar Accreditation Agreements contain similar language on the applicability of Consensus Policies. For example, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the current .BIZ (2001), .COM (2001), .INFO (2001), .NAME (2001), .ORG (2002), and .PRO (2002) registry agreements <http://www.icann.org/registries/agreements.htm> all specify that any Consensus Policy must be supported by a written report with certain minimum required elements and must be recommended by at least a two-thirds vote of the supporting organization's Council (see, e.g. .BIZ section 4.3.1 <http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/unsponsored/registry-agmt-11may01.htm#4.3.1>).
“Memo to GNSO re: Consensus Policies
27 September 2006
Page 1 of 3
Bruce,
Thank you for your inquiry concerning the Policies for Contractual Conditions PDP ("PDP-Feb06") Task Force Chair’s request for clarification on the effect of GNSO policy recommendations on ICANN's existing registry agreements.
Specifically, Task Force Chair Maureen Cubberley asked: “Given the existence of ICANN by-law annex A Clause 13, would Council please confirm to the Task Force that should the Task Force's recommendations lead to Consensus Policy (as described in Clause 13) that differs from contract wording, then all current gTLDs contracts would indeed be changed retroactively as a result? If not, the Task Force is looking for guidance on how to proceed.” <http://www.gnso.icann.org/correspondence/cubberley-to-tonkin-25aug06.pdf>
Unfortunately, without knowing what the consensus policy or policies might emerge from the current PDP, any answer to this question would be speculative and cannot be answered definitively. It is possible for the GNSO to recommend, and the Board to approve, consensus policy that would change all existing gTLD registry contracts, but that is dependent on both the policy and the impacted contracts, which have some variations between registries.
Since there has been no uniform language on consensus polices included in each ICANN registry agreement, this has been the subject of bilateral negotiations between ICANN and each registry operator and sponsor. ICANN's GTLD registry and registrar agreements provide that under certain circumstances policies that are recommended by the GNSO and adopted by the Board can create new binding obligations on registries and registrars. All of ICANN's current GTLD agreements include limitations on the topics that may be the subject of such binding new obligations, and the procedures that must be followed in order to create them….Example, Section 3.1(b) of the .JOBS Registry Agreement (as an example of the framework for ICANN's recent registry agreements) <http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/jobs/jobs-agreement.htm#3.1>provides as follows:
[3.1](b) Consensus Policies.
(i) At all times during the term of this Agreement and subject to the terms hereof, Registry Operator will fully comply with and implement all Consensus Policies found at http://www.icann.org/general/consensus-policies.htm, as of the Effective Date and as may in the future be developed and adopted in accordance with ICANN's Bylaws and as set forth below.
(ii) "Consensus Policies" are those specifications or policies established (1) pursuant to the procedure set forth in ICANN's Bylaws and due process, and (2) covering those topics listed in Section 3.1(b)(iv) below. The Consensus Policy development process and procedure set forth in ICANN's Bylaws may be revised from time to time “in accordance with ICANN's Bylaws, and any Consensus Policy that is adopted through such a revised process and covering those topics listed in Section 3.1(b)(iv) below shall be considered a Consensus Policy for purposes of this Agreement.
(iii) For all purposes under this Agreement, the policies identified at http://www.icann.org/general/consensus-policies.htm shall be treated in the same manner and have the same effect as "Consensus Policies."
(iv) Consensus Policies and the procedures by which they are developed shall be designed to produce, to the extent possible, a consensus of Internet stakeholders. Consensus Policies shall relate to one or more of the following: (1) issues for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate interoperability, Security and/or Stability of the Internet or DNS; (2) functional and performance specifications for the provision of Registry Services (as defined in Section 3.1(d)(iii) below); (3) Security and Stability of the registry database for the TLD; (4) registry policies reasonably necessary to implement Consensus Policies relating to registry operations or registrars; or (5) resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names). Such categories of issues referred to in the preceding sentence shall include, without limitation:
(A) principles for allocation of registered names in the TLD (e.g., first-come, first-served, timely renewal, holding period after expiration);
(B) prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registries or registrars;
(C) reservation of registered names in the TLD that may not be registered initially or that may not be renewed due to reasons reasonably related to (a) avoidance of confusion among or misleading of users, (b) intellectual property, or (c) the technical management of the DNS or the Internet (e.g., establishment of reservations of names from registration);
(D) maintenance of and access to accurate and up-to-date information concerning domain name registrations;
(E) procedures to avoid disruptions of domain name registration due to suspension or termination of operations by a registry operator or a registrar, including procedures for allocation of responsibility for serving registered domain names in a TLD affected by such a suspension or termination; and
(F) resolution of disputes regarding whether particular parties may register or maintain registration of particular domain names.
(v) Registry Operator shall be afforded a reasonable period of time following notice of the establishment of a Consensus Policy or Temporary Specifications or Policies in which to comply with such policy or specification, taking into account any urgency involved.
The .JOBS registry operator (Employ Media) therefore has agreed in advance to follow any ICANN "Consensus Polices", which are defined as polices that are developed pursuant to the procedure set forth in the ICANN Bylaws and which relate to the categories of issues specified in the agreement, e.g. prohibitions on speculation in domain names by registries, maintenance of and access to "WHOIS" data, resolution of disputes regarding registrations, etc. The .JOBS registry operator accordingly would not be obligated to comply with any ICANN policy that is not developed according to the policy-development procedure specified in the Bylaws or that does not relate to one of the limited topics (the so-called "picket fence") for Consensus Policies.
Other ICANN registry agreements and the Registrar Accreditation Agreements contain similar language on the applicability of Consensus Policies. For example, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the current .BIZ (2001), .COM (2001), .INFO (2001), .NAME (2001), .ORG (2002), and .PRO (2002) registry agreements <http://www.icann.org/registries/agreements.htm> all specify that any Consensus Policy must be supported by a written report with certain minimum required elements and must be recommended by at least a two-thirds vote of the supporting organization's Council (see, e.g. .BIZ section 4.3.1 <http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/unsponsored/registry-agmt-11may01.htm#4.3.1>).
Best regards,
John O. Jeffrey
General Counsel
ICANN”
John O. Jeffrey
General Counsel
ICANN”
6. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ra-agreement-2009-05-21-en
- “3.7.9 Registrar shall abide by any ICANN adopted specifications or policies prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars.”
- “Interested members of the community should also be aware that ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement specifically provides that two issues that are subject to the establishment of consensus policies binding on all registrars are: "procedures for handling expiration of registrations" (subsection 3.7.5) and "prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registries or registrars" (subsection 4.2.5.)”
- “3.7.9 Registrar shall abide by any ICANN adopted specifications or policies prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars.”
10. https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-know...ng-those-up-to-resell-them-at-premium-pricing
- “How do I know that GoDaddy and other domain registrars aren't noting which domain names are getting searched and buying those up to resell them at premium pricing?”
- According to ICANN, Warehousing or Domain Name Warehousing refers to "the practice of registrars obtaining control of domain names under their management with the intent to hold or 'warehouse' names for their use and/or profit."[1]Warehousing registrars do not drop expired domain names but instead keep them, sometimes to auction off or to maintain as parked domains, making them harder to obtain for registrants.[2][3]
13. https://www.domainregistration.com.au/news/domain-name -warehousing.php
"WHAT IS DOMAIN NAME WAREHOUSING?
Published January 8, 2011
Choosing the right domain name registrar doesn't just involve price, features and security - ethics issues may also be a consideration. For example, the reported practice of domain name warehousing in relation to some name extensions.
Usually when a domain name expires and after the relevant grace period, it is deleted and released back into the pool - a process also known as "dropping". It can then be registered by another party. However, for a registrant trying to regain control of a name at this point, it can be a difficult task due to the increasing numbers of "drop registrars" - companies that register expired names immediately after they drop.
But even before that, another potential roadblock for registrants who have failed to renew an expired domain name in time but wish to regain control is where registrars reportedly hold onto some expired names instead of releasing them at all.
This is done for the purposes of either auctioning them off to the highest bidder, other forms of monetisation or to resell the domain name back to the registrant at a greatly inflated price. Usually in the latter case, further monetisation is implemented in the interim by the displaying of advertising under the "expired" domain name. While this is domain name warehousing in its most common form, other variations exist such as pre-emptive registrations of names that could become popular or requested; for the purposes of resale at a later date.
Registrars are in a powerful position when it comes to determining a profitable name to warehouse. They know what domain names are currently in the grace period and can quite easily determine the popularity of those names - particularly if the registrar also provides web hosting services for the name in question. While in the grace period, only the registrar, the registrant or someone acting on behalf of the registrant can renew the domain name - and the registrar also gets first stab at grabbing the domain once the grace period is over if they do not delete it.
Registrars involved in domain name warehousing will sometimes cite recouping of expenses being a motivation for engaging in the practice and that they are performing a valuable service for the customer. Domain name warehousing has reportedly been occurring not just with smaller registrars, but some very big names in the industry have also been accused of the practice in the past.
The good news for registrants of Australian domain names is warehousing is considered unacceptable conduct by the auDA - the body that oversees the .au registry. auDA policies expressly forbid .au registrars from practices such as pre-registering domain names that may be popular in the future, registering names in anticipation of a customer's choice and can only renew an expired domain name at the request of a registrant. "
Published January 8, 2011
Choosing the right domain name registrar doesn't just involve price, features and security - ethics issues may also be a consideration. For example, the reported practice of domain name warehousing in relation to some name extensions.
Usually when a domain name expires and after the relevant grace period, it is deleted and released back into the pool - a process also known as "dropping". It can then be registered by another party. However, for a registrant trying to regain control of a name at this point, it can be a difficult task due to the increasing numbers of "drop registrars" - companies that register expired names immediately after they drop.
But even before that, another potential roadblock for registrants who have failed to renew an expired domain name in time but wish to regain control is where registrars reportedly hold onto some expired names instead of releasing them at all.
This is done for the purposes of either auctioning them off to the highest bidder, other forms of monetisation or to resell the domain name back to the registrant at a greatly inflated price. Usually in the latter case, further monetisation is implemented in the interim by the displaying of advertising under the "expired" domain name. While this is domain name warehousing in its most common form, other variations exist such as pre-emptive registrations of names that could become popular or requested; for the purposes of resale at a later date.
Registrars are in a powerful position when it comes to determining a profitable name to warehouse. They know what domain names are currently in the grace period and can quite easily determine the popularity of those names - particularly if the registrar also provides web hosting services for the name in question. While in the grace period, only the registrar, the registrant or someone acting on behalf of the registrant can renew the domain name - and the registrar also gets first stab at grabbing the domain once the grace period is over if they do not delete it.
Registrars involved in domain name warehousing will sometimes cite recouping of expenses being a motivation for engaging in the practice and that they are performing a valuable service for the customer. Domain name warehousing has reportedly been occurring not just with smaller registrars, but some very big names in the industry have also been accused of the practice in the past.
The good news for registrants of Australian domain names is warehousing is considered unacceptable conduct by the auDA - the body that oversees the .au registry. auDA policies expressly forbid .au registrars from practices such as pre-registering domain names that may be popular in the future, registering names in anticipation of a customer's choice and can only renew an expired domain name at the request of a registrant. "
Last edited:
