Pother Envelopes ICANN Gathering

A storm brews over South America as Uruguay prepares to host ICANN's September meeting. Proponents and critics converge again to debate issues including domain slamming and its not-so-at-large membership.

by Jim Wagner of internetnews.com [September 4, 2001]

Hurricane Flossie is losing steam in the Gulf of Mexico this week, but a storm of another sort is getting ready to boil over at the September meeting of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.

Montevideo, Uruguay, a small South American country with a population of more than three million souls, will play host to some of the biggest names in the Internet business, including key registrars who host and manage 000 million domain names.

Two issues—domain slamming and the role of its at-large membership—are certain to be at the center of the debate whirling about this four-day conference.

Service switching salvo
Domain slamming is similar to phone slamming scams of certain long-distance operators that dupe customers into switching their service from one carrier to another. Only in the domain name business, the trickery occurs when an unscrupulous registrar switches a domain owner from one registrar to another without the owner's full knowledge.

VeriSign unilaterally decided to put the onus of switching registrars on the domain name owner. Officials at the monolithic registry service penned a letter to ICANN informing them of their decision and immediately implemented their system last month, which touched off a downpour of criticism from registrars and registrants worldwide.

Instead of the gaining registrar receiving the authorization from the owner and making the changes from their end, VeriSign instituted a Byzantine process in use to this day. Steps include:

• The new registrar notifies VeriSign (the old registrar) that the owner of www.forexample.com wants to transfer registrar services.
• From the date of that request, the domain owner has five calendar days (not five business days) to respond to a form generated by VeriSign, authorizing the transfer.
• The form must then be authenticated, normally by way of a notary public.
• VeriSign transfers the domain to the new registrar.

If the customer doesn't meet the five-day deadline, repeat step the process—over, and over, and over again.

It sounds simple enough, and under perfect conditions it seems like a logical, foolproof method for protecting the ownership rights of the domain name registrant. But we don't live in a perfect world, and World Wide Web is a mere extension of our imperfections. Since VeriSign implemented the process, there have been numerous complaints by registrars and registrants alike, citing breakdowns of communication.

Proof and consequences
Registrants say they've received authorization letters from VeriSign two or three days after the five-day deadline commenced or the notice would arrived on a Friday, making it impossible to secure the required authentication from a notary public on a Saturday or Sunday and meet the deadline.

Rival registrars don't like the VeriSign mandate because domain name owners are hesitant to make switch services because the process is such a hassle. Additionally, missed deadlines inflate the costs of transferring domains. Since most registrants decide to switch registrars on the anniversary of their original registration date, they are forced to pay VeriSign another $35 in registration fees to maintain ownership of their domain name.

In the middle of this process are Internet service providers and Web hosting firms, often blamed for the error of VeriSign's ways. When VeriSign's system breaks down, domain name owners find fault with their service provider, which must endure the wrath of registrants in order to secure new hosting clientele.

VeriSign mole ruit sua
Ross Rader, director of research and innovation atTucows, a Canada-based registrar, has criticized VeriSign's decision from the beginning, but believes that the affects of domain slamming are overstated.

"I'm skeptical of claims that this is a huge problem that will kill us if we don't do something about it," Rader said. "I think domain slamming probably has happened and may likely continue to happen—it'll likely continue to happen regardless of what solution ICANN comes up with.

"I think what's important is that registrars are characterized as somehow underhanded simply because we're undertaking the transfer of an address," Rader continued. "I believe that given the proper tools, registrars will behave."

ICANN, for the moment, is leaning toward the side of the new registrar. Last week, Louis Touton, ICANN's general counsel, sent a letter to Christine Russo, VeriSign manager of contracts and compliance, ruling in favor of independent registrars.

Touton ruled against one of VeriSign's primary arguments in favor of the new policy. VeriSign says domain name owners non-response to its inquiry is proof that a transfer request is a spoof. Touton said otherwise.

"Because the policy allocates the verification responsibility to the gaining registrar, the lack of such a response is not by itself an adequate reason to deny the transfer," the letter read.

Independent registrars interpreted Touton's correspondence as a victory, a very rare instance where ICANN actually ruled against the powerful registrar. Tucow's Rader said the ruling is great news.

"The constituency at ICANN had a teleconference last week to essentially ratify the basic principles and direction that, as an industry, we need to go in," Rader said. "Louis' letter really reaffirms the basis of those talks, and to have somebody who's in charge, as it were, is gratifying. A lot of us feel vindicated in the position we took on this issue."

VeriSign simply said the ICANN ruling is a victory for consumers. Of course simultaneously continues contesting the order by failing to adjust its domain name transfer process. Cheryl Regan, VeriSign spokesperson, said the company is in talks with many registrars to work on a solution and that the meetings in Uruguay would be a great place to work out a final solution.

"Our read is that (the ruling is) a recognition that it's about the customer, and their contract with the registrar," Regan said. "And that the current process really does seem to favor the gaining registrar in all of this. We're real hopeful that that recognition leads to a resolution next week that is going to honor the contract between the registrar and the customer and protect them from unauthorized transfers.

"For now, the losing registrar still needs authorization," she continued. "I don't know when we'll get a resolution on this, we're in talks with other registrars about other solutions. I do know that it will be discussed next week and that will be a great opportunity to reach a resolution."

Bypassing bylaws
The second issue looming over Uruguay is sure to raise the hackles of Internet watchdog groups. According to ICANN's bylaws, its board must consist of nineteen directors—nine from ICANN's three supporting organizations, four from select advisory committees and five at-large members (below).

But somewhere between its origin and now, the organization's bylaws were bypassed in order to maintain continuity among ICANN's leadership. Claiming that continuity was critical for the continued success of ICANN, the original nine directors voted behind closed doors to extend the one-year terms of four of the original board members indefinitely. Known as "board squatters," the permanent directors assumed four of the nine "electable" at-large seats. For many in the Internet community, this is a travesty of justice—a betrayal of the independent and changing nature of the Internet.

Originally, the At-Large Membership Study Committee (ALSC) was formed to determine the best method for individuals to be represented on the ICANN board of directors. Instead, the ALSC has discovered it is powerless to reinstate its four usurped chairs.

Despite vocal arguments at board meetings and opines from Web watchdogs like ICANNwatch.org, a recent report concluded "despite extensive efforts, the ALSC has found it difficult to generate a high degree of interest in these issues."

Conciliation prize
Michael Froomkin, professor of law at the University of Miami, said that the committee's report is a compromise that attempts to mollify both sides of the aisle, but that it will likely take a lawsuit or action by the U.S. Commerce Department to get the board squatters ejected from their "permanent" seats.

"When the committee was first appointed, I and others noted how odd it was to have people on (the ALSC) who were against the end-user representation, and some real neutrals, but no one who was on record for it," Froomkin said. "ICANN said that it would be wrong to have 'partisans' but of course didn't see that the people on record against the nine directors as at all partisan. This (report) is what you get when you leave one important point of view off the committee."

Another Web watchdog likened the ICANN committee selection process to the state of Florida deciding to form up an electoral reform committee and putting only Republicans on the board.

In the end, the ALSC recommended ICANN develop an At-Large Supporting Organization, similar to the Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO), Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Protocol Supporting Organization.

The committee also recommended that elections for six at-large seats be held next year, and that these directors hold office for a period of three years. These six seats would come from six different regions of the world. Although the committee hasn't named the regions, the move is likely designed to silence critics contending that ICANN's leadership kowtows to U.S. interests.

But you can do the math yourself—no matter which way you look at it, six does not equal nine. ICANN's at-large membership is sure to be debated when the report is put to the board forth for discussion in Uruguay.

Until ICANN can reassure Netizens that it is looking after their welfare the Internet's governing body is going to have a tough time selling its vision of the World Wide Web its global community.

—End