[Policy-forum] TAKING STOCK

[Gregg Moscoe]

As we near the end of another year, it's time to take stock.

The proposed changes to the Nexus dispute policy have been withdrawn, and a 
good thing, too.  They still put the burden of protesting an improperly 
registered domain on the shoulders of the complainant, even when that 
person has done Neustar's work for them in ferreting out the information.

Neustar promised to take action against an offender, an Australian company 
with nearly 2,000 domains they're holding for resale.  They allowed the 
offender to simply change the "inaccurate information" in their application 
to appear to comply with Nexus requirements.  The argument offered by 
Neustar is that the people in question had a company incorporated in the 
U.S. which was qualified at the time of the registration.  They were just 
stupid and didn't follow directions.  Now that's all been cleaned up and 
everything is fine.  Wrong.

The domain I was originally seeking was pointed to a holding page, then to 
a domain services company in Australia, and now to... nothing.  But I bet 
it's still for sale for $1500, which is what they demanded from me.  When 
you figure they pay $6-$10 a domain.  Buy 2,000 domains at $6 each for 
$12,000.  Sell 10 at $1500 each, you're ahead.  Sell 100 @$1500, you're way 
ahead.  That's profiteering at our expense.

The first problem with this position is that Neustar's and/or eNom's 
systems should have flagged these applications and never accepted them in 
the first place.

The second problem is that the business entity the offenders established 
still should not qualify them, since Nexus requires foreign business 
entities establishing a bona fide U.S. business presence to be in a 
business other than domain services.  However, that is all this company 
does, and their managers have been singled out in the industry press as 
being part of the second largest domain services company in Australia.

So Neustar is trying to edge around the problem on technical issues; 
however, they're on the wrong side of those issues as well.

I hope the good people at NTIA are looking into these matters.  I think 
they are.  But government moves deliberately.

And let's look at kids.us.  There are now three entries under the kids.us 
directory:

  - smithsonian.kids.us, by a fine American institution
  - info.kids.us, which seems to be a reiteration of the kids.us directory, and
  - firstgov.kids.us, which is a pleasing civics platform for government info

This is what we get in return for allowing these people to flout the 
regulations, and bypass the unique registration requirements that 
potentially make the .us TLDs important?  That's it?

Tell you what: Commerce Dept., I'll set up a non-profit to oversee .us.

The first thing I'll do is to set up an automated system that detects when 
application information entered in fields like country, state or province, 
postal code, phone or fax area codes don't conform to U.S. norms, and flag 
those applications for research.

This system would be required of any registrar handling .us TLDs.  It isn't 
rocket science.

If they are flagged, they can qualify by providing the necessary 
documentation (i.e. Social Security #, Passport #, registration of 
incorporation and business, etc.).

If they can't provide documentation, "badabing": application rejected.

There would be an initial application charge for all apps, and a small 
extra fee for processing flagged/questionable apps, which the registrar 
would keep for each valid application.  I'd make it a policy that the 
application charge is non-refundable; if you're too lazy or stupid or 
arrogant to fill out the form in such a way that it at least appears to be 
in compliance, you can't provide documentation, and the registrar was too 
"asleep at the wheel" to catch and deal with the problem, then "badabing": 
we reject your application and we -- the administering organization -- keep 
the fee.  You don't like it, you're in a foreign country, so sue.  The 
registrar doesn't like it, so they tighten their enforcement.  Carrot and 
stick.

I'd set up a policy under which competing claims for a domain FOR ACTIVE 
USE, NOT FOR RESALE, would be handled via Nexus dispute.  Under that 
policy, claims of improper or unqualified registration would be handled as 
indicated above.  If the domain is improperly registered, and the 
complainants who do the investigative work want the domain FOR ACTIVE USE, 
not for resale, they can register it at standard prices from the 
responsible registrar.  If the complainant doesn't want it, the domain goes 
back into the pool.

I would also set up a campaign to promote the .us TLDs actively to U.S. 
businesses and consumers, with a .us "Chamber of Commerce" director, and 
encourage the use of .us TLDs by civic groups, veterans organizations, 
political and interest groups, etc.

I would also find a coalition of education, librarian and child development 
organizations to provide input on appropriate services for kids.us, and 
seek foundation support for those services.

I'd set up metrics, of what constituted success, and I'd meet regularly 
with those responsible to see where we are in terms of milestones, 
achievements and new directions.

Well, the Policy Council either a) hasn't met, or b) is hiding out and not 
posting minutes, since January of this year.

IMHO, the .US Policy Council...
    * Jonathan Hudis, American Intellectual Property Law Association
    * Tom Cunningham, Bulk Register, Inc.
    * Michael D. Palage, Attorney and Internet industry expert
    * Joe Rubin, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
    * Claudette W. Tennant, American Library Association
    * David Wascher, Delegated Manager, The Registry at Info Avenue
    * Jeff Neuman, NeuStar, Inc.
    * Tom McGarry, NeuStar, Inc. (non-voting technical advisor)
    * James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
... are not serving the .US community to the best of their ability.  Or if 
they are, we need another council.

That's my two cents.

Happy holidays.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.neustar.biz/pipermail/policy-forum/attachments/20031101/a7a4dee3/attachment.html