List:
Concerning recent questions on domain name transfer, domain
name slamming, problems with domain name registration and
shared registry, it seems to me that everyone is missing the point,
er, the dot ;-)
The point is that domain name holders have *lost* all their claim to a
domain name with the Shared Registry system, and ICANN is the
effective owner of all Internet domain names registered under the
Shared Registry system (see ICANN's Guidelines). All that
matters to Internet domain name registration and resolution is the
Registry and now all that matters to the Registry are the Registrars.
The Registry has no information on the registrant, the purported
domain name holder -- but who is left holding his own hands, with no
domains.
So, domain name slamming is now a legal act and the discussion on it is
irrelevant -- since all domain names are effectively registered to the
Registrar, any Registrar can "slam" them to another Registrar and the
registrant has no role or legal right to counter it. The current Shared
Registry protocol enforces this by its code, since the registrant's name
is unknown to the Registry.
Thus, what we also have is a full loss to any idea of domain name even *as
described in RFCs* -- as identifying hosts and the responsible entity for
the host, for example. In the Shared Registry system, domain names are
labels sold and operated by Registrars under ICANN's supervision -- and
that name in the Registry does not identify or denote a person responsible
for it... just the Registrar. If the Registrar defaults or fouls-up,
ICANN purportedly has a 7/24 hours list of all domain name files at that
Registrar and can transfer them to another Registrar, as it may choose.
And, since each Registrar may have commercial reasons of not disclosing
their clients to other Registrars (after all, they are a client list) or
providing whois service to other pages outside of their own website
(decreasing their traffic and ad sales), what we have is also a full
loss of the idea of Registry itself -- since we cannot know what is in
the Registry just by looking at fragmented views from its Registrars.
On the other hand, the Registry finds itself in a very awkward position.
A Registry is selling to the Registrar a product which bears the name
of the registrant (i.e., the DNS name), that may be trademarked by
that registrant, is made-to-order of the registrant, must be serviced by
the Registry on a 7/24 hour basis to the world at large on behalf of the
registrant, and points from the Registry to a registrant-defined address.
And, yet, the Registry wishes to deny any connection to the registrant!
By just recognizing the Registrar -- who had no role to play in any of
the above.
Further, that domain name is a product of the Registry and is usually
not owned by the Registrar before it is first registered by the Registrar
to the registrant, nor has the Registrar any power to sell its after-sales
update/renewal future to other Registrars and end its business (see
ICANN's Guidelines) -- so, neither the product nor any of its derived
services ever really belong to the Registrar. And, yet, in the Shared
Registry Protocol being used, that product can be
revoked/canceled/transferred/renewed/etc. and fail to service the
registrant by a mere order of the Registrar alone -- who has nothing
to lose.
The entire Shared Registry system is thus flawed irrespective of protocol
implementation. Internet domain name holders as a class are being
convinced to give out what is theirs as defined in RFCs, historical
consideration and legal rights of trademark. But, does anyone really
believe that the owners of amazon.com would agree to the Shared
Registry proposition that the COM Registry does not know who
those owners are? Does anyone really believe that a Registrar should
own all domain names it registers, as viewed from the Registry? Does
anyone really agree that Internet domain names should now be a
public concession even though trademarks on those very names
are private property?
The conflicts are apparent, the system is unworkable both legally and
practically. Why is the dot still being missed?
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
