again, I will have a longer post on this as soon as time permits.
a couple bullets to stimulate dialogue:
- as we all know NSI has already done this;
- the policy underpinning of the EDDP was to prohibit registrar warehousing of names;
- everything we are trying to do is with the clear view, in form and substance, that we are acting on behalf of the registrant, not in place of the registrant. we think to date we are alone in this respect.
what I would be most interested in all of your thoughts on in the interim is "the following:
what is the negative impact in substance on the registrant in an "opt out" situation (I think that is the way you would like me to express it, right Robert?)?"
we can have a separate discussion about form ("it violates the EDDP") but I am interested here in the substance. factual circumstances where the registrant, say my mom for example, is worse off in a situation where they are the primary economic beneficiary and are not opted out?
one other quick note. behind the scenes things are crazy in the industry right now. there is a complete overhaul going on. no one knows where all of this is going to end up, but I will make two bold predictions. first, one year from now (perhaps even six months from now) the domain name industry will be fundamentally different. two, the primary beneficiary will be the registrant and the whole market will be larger, healthier and more vibrant.
accordingly, we will do our best to push things in the right direction and to be the best resource possible for all of you.
Regards
Robert L Mathews wrote:
At 9/25/04 7:15 AM, elliot noss wrote:
further to this, I recognize that this is a contentious issue.
I still don't quite understand what Tucows is saying, unfortunately. Are you confirming that you might be considering changing the registrant agreement in a way that allows Tucows to auction off domain names, even if the registrant doesn't explicitly say "I no longer want example.com and I want you to auction it for me"?
If so, I simply don't believe Tucows can make any change to the registrant agreement that gives them any power over the domain name without the explicit consent of the registrant (and by "consent", I don't mean burying "you consent that we can auction your domain name" in an agreement that we all know few people ever read).
Any such change would violate the EDDP. Registrars can't do anything with a domain name if the name holder disappears and does not respond to renewal notices; all they can do is delete them. The EDDP makes this quite clear.
Domain names are a public resource licensed to a registrant; Tucows just processes the transaction. If a Tucows-sponsored domain name expires and the registrant does not respond to any notices asking if the registrant wants to renew it, or auction it, or whatever, Tucows *must* delete it and return it to "the public"; Tucows has no more right to make extra money off that domain than GoDaddy, VeriSign, me, or the Pope.
(I should emphasize that if the name holder decides he no longer wants it and explicitly signs up for a Tucows service that helps him auction it, I have no problem with that at all -- that's a good idea, and congratulations on such a service if that's the final version. I'd almost certainly use it myself.)
it is important in working through this analysis to keep context. in other words we are not designing a system on a blank sheet of paper. we are required to do it in the context of the current market with all its twists and turns. I think if all of you were privy to the views of most other registrars (some of course are public with their positions) you would be quite disappointed.
I'm sure you're right, but no registrar can violate an ICANN consensus policy; registrars who do so should be punished, not emulated in a race to the bottom. I expect Tucows can come up with a service that respects ICANN policy; let the others mire themselves in litigation, bad will, and so forth.
Also, James Ussher-Smith wrote:
I believe what James is saying is that everyone will be automatically opted-in unless they opt out.
Whatever other form this discussion takes, I'm going to complain *every single time* someone uses the phrase "opted in" to mean "didn't opt out of something buried in dozens of paragraphs of legalese". The correct term for that is "an opt out system"; it has nothing to with "opt in" at all.
