NSI changes registrant agreement to allow takeover of expired domains?

[GeorgeK]

See:

http://www.networksolutions.com/en_U....jhtml#domains

Sections 14 and 15:

14. Grace Period; IP Address Changes; Renewal and Transfer of Expired Domain Names on Your Behalf. You agree that we may, but are not obligated to, allow you to renew your domain name after its expiration date has passed. You agree that after the expiration date of your domain name registration and before it is deleted or renewed, we may direct your domain name to an IP address designated by us, including, without limitation, to an IP address which hosts a parking, under construction or other temporary page that may include promotions and advertisements for, and links to, Network Solutions’s Web site, Network Solutions product and service offerings, third-party Web sites, third-party product and service offerings, and/or Internet search engines, and you agree that we may place our contact information in the WHOIS output for the expired domain name. Should you choose not to renew your domain name during any applicable grace period, you agree that we may, in our sole discretion, renew and transfer the domain name to a third party on your behalf (such a transaction is hereinafter referred to as a “Direct Transfer”). In the event we are able to identify such a third party (the “Direct Transfer Customer”) and effectuate such a Direct Transfer, we will notify you via email after the transaction is completed (“Direct Transfer Notification”). Additionally, you will be eligible to receive a portion of the funds received by us as a result of a Direct Transfer of your domain name, as follows: (i) if you registered your domain name with Network Solutions directly through our Web site, you will be eligible to receive twenty percent (20%) of the Net Proceeds received by us from our third party vendor as a result of a Direct Transfer; and (ii) if you registered your domain name with Network Solutions through a third party agent (such as your ISP, for example), you will be eligible to receive fifteen percent (15%) of the Net Proceeds received by us from our third party vendor as a result of a Direct Transfer. You acknowledge and agree that the Direct Transfer process may be facilitated through a single Direct Transfer Customer, or through a brief auction involving multiple parties who are interested in your domain name. For purposes of this paragraph, “Net Proceeds” shall mean the total fees paid to us by our third party vendor as a result of a Direct Transfer, less any registry fees, credit card charge-backs, processing and check fees, and other costs or fees associated with the Direct Transfer of the domain name. You agree that we shall have no obligation to pay you, and you shall have no right to receive, any percentage of the Net Proceeds unless, within ninety (90) days after the date of our Direct Transfer Notification, you first provide us with the name, address and related information requested by us (including, but not limited to, a Form W-9, if applicable) in our Direct Transfer Notification. We cannot guarantee, and we make no representation or promise, that any Direct Transfer will occur with respect to your domain name.

15. New Customers through a Backorder Service. If you are registering a domain name through a backorder service and that domain name was registered with, and not yet deleted by, Network Solutions at the time of your purchase, you acknowledge and agree that the term of your registration will be for a period of one year from the original expiration date for the domain name immediately prior to your purchase, as the registration is the result of a Direct Transfer (defined above). If you are registering a domain name through a backorder service and the domain name was not registered with Network Solutions at the time of your purchase but was deleted by the applicable top-level domain registry at the time of your purchase, you acknowledge and agree that the term of your registration will be for a period of one year from the date it is initially registered with Network Solutions by the provider of the backorder service.

Scary!! Clear violation of RGP, in my opinion.

[jberryhill]

"violation"

Come now, George. The Deletes Task Force report was never officially adopted as a "consensus policy" under the RAA.

[fatter]

looks like tucows approach(only they dont get your permission first) you just get 20 percent of sale price with nsi

[hiOsilver]

Originally Posted by fatter

looks like tucows approach(only they dont get your permission first) you just get 20 percent of sale price with nsi

And how much of the auction does the previous owner get from Pool, Club Drop, Namewinner, etc? Sounds a lot better for the losing owner than nothing.

[GeorgeK]

If you read the legal language closely, it's NOT 20% of the SALES price. It is "twenty percent (20%) of the Net Proceeds received by us from our third party vendor". So, if the domain sells for $1000, and SnapNames keeps 50%, for example.... NSI gets $500, and the domain registrant would only get 20% of the $500, or $100.

[fatter]

And how much of the auction does the previous owner get from Pool, Club Drop, Namewinner, etc? Sounds a lot better for the losing owner than nothing.


I agree hiosilver, its nice to see the trend shifting to give something to the registrant

[GeorgeK]

fatter: Pool, NameWinner, Club Drop, etc. (i.e. the status quo) are registering freshly caught names, that properly expired and were properly deleted. They owe nothing to the prior registrant, and the prior registrant is entitled to nothing.

NSI, though, is usurping the rights of their domain registrants, who 1) want to renew their domains and 2) are entitled to the Redemption Grace Period. NSI is putting their own interests ahead of their clients. The conflict of interest should be self-evident. Suggesting that their hands are clean because they toss a bone to the prior registrant, or donate to charity, or whatever, doesn't change the fact that what they are doing is wrong. They'll see a spanking for this, I'm sure.

It's the same attitude they displayed when dealing with Gary Kremen over sex.com, the height of arrogance to think they can get away with this scheme. The only way it should be permitted is if domain registrants actively OPT-IN to it (and absence of opting-out is not the same as actively opting-in). For the few moronic clients who would opt-in to such a scheme, I have no pity.

[Whois-Search]

I agree George NSI are going to sued over this.

[jberryhill]

"are entitled to the Redemption Grace Period"

Says who?

[Whois-Search]

Icann

[nameslave]

Registrants are entitled to RGP before their domain names will be deleted. Now registrars like NetSol and Tucows are transferring. Looks like their lawyers have found a loophole in there. Ask the lawyers. LOL!

[jberryhill]

"Icann"

You'll have to be more specific than that. What ICANN contract entitles a registrant to an RGP?

(warning: I was on the ICANN GNSO Deletes Task Force, so this may be a trick question.)

[fatter]

Registrants are entitled to RGP before their domain names will be deleted. Now registrars like NetSol and Tucows are transferring. Looks like their lawyers have found a loophole in there. Ask the lawyers. LOL!
__________________
I beleive Tucows is a volunteer setup with registrants permission

[Whois-Search]

The task force believes that the recently adopted Redemption Grace Period (RGP) not only provides registrants with crucial protection in the event of inadvertent deletion or misunderstanding of deletion policy, but also provides significant transparency into the deletion process as lists of names to be purged from the registry's system are published on a regular basis. The task force feels that the RGP, along with the existing Add Grace Period, provides an adequate level of consistency and transparency in terms of registry deletion policy, and does not recommend any other specific steps be adopted at this time.

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030...TF-report.html

http://gnso.icann.org/issues/deletes...-17jun03.shtml

And that was approved by the ICANN board, 17-0 vote.

Further resolved [03.163] that the ICANN President and General Counsel are authorized to take steps to implement those policy recommendations by consulting as appropriate with registry operators, registrars, and other knowledgeable parties and through amendments and notices, as appropriate, pursuant to ICANN’s agreements with gTLD registry operators and registrars.

http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-31oct03.htm

[jberryhill]

That's very good Whois-search.

Now for the kicker. That board resolution authorized ICANN President and General Counsel to "implement those policy recommendations [...] through amendments and notices, as appropriate, pursuant to ICANN’s agreements with gTLD registry operators and registrars."

The thing is... they never did that.

These are the registrar consensus policies:
http://www.icann.org/general/consensus-policies.htm

Notice something missing?

The Deletes Task Force was a waste of time. You see, the idea was originally to get NSI and Register.com to delete boatloads of domain names that they were not letting expire, subject to vague plans to auction them off. But, just before it kicked off, NSI/Verisign came out with the WLS. So, everyone realized they could make money off of expiring names that way, and Register.com is basically by now just a money-losing shell driven by Enom (ever wonder what happened to the Register.com v. Domain Registry of America lawsuit - just kinda faded away... but I digress).

Anywho, this was going to be fine and dandy with NSwhatyacallit and SnapNames, until, even though the ICANN Board approved WLS, they still needed DoC's blessing to amend the registry agreement. Sooooo... Verislime sued ICANN anyway, just to make the point that the registry agreement shouldn't need amending. Meanwhile, a raft of registrars, with more pull at the DoC apparently, sued Verislime to stop WLS.

Verislime's lawsuit got thrown out; a week later Verislime stopped letting new registrars into the batch pool; and... BANG... out pops this "new" idea of auctioning off expiring names.

Which, if you followed the ball, was what they were going to do, gosh, has it been three years ago already?

We are now precisely back at square one, when the other registrars said, "Hey, shouldn't we have a uniform deletion policy?"

And, oh yes, throw the ICANN reorganization in there somewhere, in order to keep riff-raff like me that care about domain registrants OUT of the process in the future.

The bottom line here is that there is nothing that "entitles" domain registrants to the RGP, and as sure as low tide makes the mud stink at Marina Del Rey, there will never be an ICANN policy that "entitles" domain registrants to anything.

ICANN is a cesspool of interests that don't include yours.

[Duke]

Great background info John. Thanks for that post.

[StockDoctor]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

ICANN is a cesspool of interests that don't include yours.

Exactly why we domainers need some organization of our interests as the consumers
in this market to apply pressure to the ultimate authority the DOC.
Doc

[jberryhill]

Look at the date on this email from Netsol:

-----Original Message-----
From: Business Account [mailto:BusinessA@netsol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 3:21 PM
Subject: Please Read: Important Announcement from NSI to Business
Account Members


> Dear Premier/Business Account Program Members:
>
> Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) is implementing a new practice that could
> eliminate, or at least reduce, the number of unpaid registrations that
> occur when your customers fail to pay for our domain name registration
> services. As you are aware, pursuant to the terms of your
> Premier/Business Account Agreement with us, your customers must remit
> payments for our services in a timely manner for your account to remain in
> good standing. Effective immediately, we are providing your domain name
> registration customers with an opportunity to satisfy their payment
> obligation to us by placing their delinquent registration in our new
> auction site. If such actions result in a transfer to a new registrant
> through the auction site, the proceeds we receive from the transfer (up to
> the full amount of the registration fee) will be retained by us to satisfy
> your customer's registration fee.
>
> We believe this to be a sound and reasonable course of action for
> customers who register domain names, but refuse to pay for services
> rendered. We also believe that these actions will alleviate the payment
> burden from our partners. Generally, we have learned that if we have not
> been paid, it is likely that our partners have not either.
>
> So that you clearly understand the process leading up to this action we
> offer the following information:
>
> * We have sent the registrant three prior billing notices:
> 1. Original invoice
> 2. Late notice
> 3. Notice of deactivation
>
> The customer has still not paid for our domain name
> registration services.
>
> * On Thursday, June 22, the administrative contact for such
> registrants will receive an e-mail from NSI requesting payment for such
> domain name(s). This means that if a registrant has registered multiple
> domain names and has not paid for them, he/she will receive a separate
> e-mail for each unpaid name.
>
> * The administrative contact will be given three options.
> 1. Pay the registration fee electronically by June 28, 2000.
> 2. Instruct NSI to delete the name by June 28, 2000.
> 3. If the domain name is not paid for or is deleted by June 28,
> 2000, it will be entered on the NSI auction site. Any proceeds from the
> sale of the name (up to the full amount of the registration fee) will be
> retained by NSI and the domain name will be transferred to the successful
> bidder.
>
> There will be no exceptions or exemptions from this e-mail as it is
> extremely important that these registrants be given one final chance to
> pay.
>
> We thank you for your cooperation. Please direct any questions to your
> Partner Relations or Business Support team.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Thomas E. van Gorder
> Vice President, Sales and Business Development

Correction to prior post. This was FOUR years ago. I am feeling old.

[stuff]

Amazing to see, that there is noone who could do anything against this new system.