[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

ICANN/Network Soln/DOC issues

I am writing to ICANN concerning several issues related to the domain name administration including issues surrounding Network Solutions (Internic), the Dept. of Commerce (DOC) agreement, and general domain name registration issues.  I met with Becky Burr and Karen Rose last week surrounding these issues and they suggested I contact ICANN.  I currently have more than 200 domains registered with Internic and during this process I have learned a significant amount of practical information about the system. 
The issues I wish to discuss are:
-The 'agreement' that is attached to all domain registrations.
-The trademark dispute policy and the administration of such by Internic
-Possible conflict of interest when registrars or registries register domain names for themselves
-The distribution of domains released from 'on-hold' status are NOT released on a first-come first-serve basis.  Internic provides knowingly false information in their FAQ about this.
-The agreement between Internic and DOC (which is not a contract, but a cooperative agreement)
DOMAIN REGISTRATION 'AGREEMENT' -  Without going over this agreement point-by-point I think I can safely say that nobody registering a domain would accept this agreement if they had a choice.  It essentially makes Internic an absolute dictator with little recourse for anyone with a dispute.  Unless someone has the resources to sue Internic, they do not even have to respond to complaint.  The 'agreement' even sets the venue of any court case in Virginia!  I discussed this with DOC and they suggested the agreement may violate consumer laws as an unfair practice.  However, they suggested I take Internic court even though they are the entity in charge of this agreement (however, since it is a cooperative agreement DOC has less authority than if it was a contract).  they suggested this issue be reviewed by ICANN.
In one case I registered a domain and I was contacted shortly thereafter by someone who said they actually controlled the domain.  I called Internic the next day and Internic told me I had the domain.  I then incurred expenses setting up the web site.  Internic contacted me several days later and said they made a mistake.  They wrote to me and indicated that they would 'offer' me a $70 credit on another domain.  They went on to say that whether I accepted the offer or not they would take the domain away from me.  I did not object to the transfer but I submitted an itemized list of expenses which exceeded $70.  They simply say that they 'decline' to pay and have refused to give a reason why.  This is one minor example but I believe Internic exceeds their authority by a wide margin.  A new agreement needs to be developed with some type of reasonable dispute procedure.  Essentially, Internic has developed a policy with their profit margin as the main concern.
TRADEMARK DISPUTE POLICY - This policy is really just a guideline.  It essentially says that Internic 'may' do certain things in certain situations.  Many others have commented on this so I won't go into this in detail but some type of reasonable policy needs to be developed for the same reasons as above in my discussion of the agreement.
CONFLICT WHEN REGISTRAR REGISTER DOMAINS THEMSELVES -  I will give an example that happened to me to make my point.  On Feb 17 I set up tool at my web site called WWWHOIS (it processes the input and contacts the correct WHOIS server based on which top level domain is associated with the input.  i.e. Internic for .com, England for .uk, etc).  On March 31 I was contacted by someone in the Internic marketing department because the page with my wwwhois tool also had links to Internic.  On April 22 Internic registered 'wwwhois.com' for themselves.  I supplied them with all the documentation and I requested they transfer the domain to me.   Internic claimed I would not have a right to the name because it is close to "WHOIS" and Internic claims they would own this mark.  Internic now wants to invoke the dispute policy themselves even though they are a party to the dispute!  (this probably violates the cooperative agreements rules, though).  I have filed a service mark application at PTO and I am waiting for that.  By coincidence, I live near the court that is identified in the 'agreement' as the venue for the dispute but the only way to recover my intellectual property will be to sue.  This is not a practical alternative in most cases.  
NO FIRST-COME, FIRST-SERVE FOR RELEASED DOMAINS - The FAQ at the Internic web site advises people about releases domains on hold to wait until the domain appears as 'not found' on the public WHOIS database.  If you follow these directions you will NEVER get a desirable domain name.  There are actually 2 databases: one public that is updated once a day and one private that is real time.  For example, if a domain is released at 2 pm then it can be registered immediately by sending in a preformatted template.  If you try to register at the web site it will not even create the template because the public database says it is taken.  The people that know the trick start e-mailing templates in when a domain goes on hold.  When a good domain is released it is essentially a competition between about 5 people or so.  Nobody could figure this out unless someone told them or they monitored the system over time.  A person seeking a single domain has no chance.  Internic had not even told the DOC how this works, I had to explain it to them.  Much of the staff at the Internic help desk also do not understand how this works.  If the system starts to slow down Internic start blocking certain people from sending in templates (apparently based on how many templates are being sent in).  However, they refuse to provide specific criteria to anyone who wants to try to register domains.  They say the criteria is based on how their system is responding so they cannot give any specific information.  Essentially Internic set up this game but they won't tell anyone what the rules are.  DOC told me they instructed Internic to provide written procedures for this (as required by the cooperative agreement rules) but Internic has refused.  
What really is happening is that Internic does not want to upgrade their system to handle the current situation (which has changed over the years).  Instead, they give out false information and try to keep everything as quiet as possible.  This is another example of the profit margin gaining precedence over the actual intent of the project.  I expect this may be contrary to the statement of work but I can't get a copy ...
THE DOC/INTERNIC COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - This is a cooperative agreement and not a contract.  The major difference is that Internic has greater leeway in making administrative and technical decisions.  However, the work is still not supposed to be contrary to, or outside the scope of, the Statement of Work (SOW).  Unfortunately, the complete statement of work is a closely held secret.  Internic posts a small portion of the agreement at their web site but they have refused my repeated request to provide the complete statement of work.  Two major portions are missing:  section II that has the boiler plate clauses for grants and cooperative agreements (I was able to get most of this from the DOC and NSF web site).  The biggest portion missing is Internic's revised proposal that is incorporated as part of the statement of work.  Internic won't give it to me and DOC says they are getting the information together for me but several weeks have gone by and I still don't have it.  This document should be readily available on the Internet.  I expect Internic is doing things outside an/or contrary to the SOW.  There have been several claims over the years that Internic is in fact doing things contrary to the RFC's (which are incorporated into the SOW). 
Russ Smith