Bret,

Your desciption of how you registered your .pro domains it touches on several areas that have been raised in various fora the past few days.

Would you mind if I use your registrations as examples to summarize some of these issues?

- Your law.pro domain matches your second level internet.pro domain but the med.pro domain does not. Does this matter? Should the public be told what professions were used to register internet.pro or any other second level domain?

- Your law.pro domain redirects to internet.pro, an online radio site. How do you respond to those who would say the use of third level .pro domains should be restricted to the associated profession?
Does it matter that internet.law.pro is not being used to offer legal services?

- Your internet.pro online radio site is made possible by the registration of internet.law.pro and paid.med.pro. How would you respond to those who say the use of the second level .pro domain needs to be restricted to offering only the professional services of the two third level domains it is associated with?

Does it matter that internet.pro is not being used for legal or medical services?

- You have indicated that you have shared internet.pro with a lawyer friend. Would you say you are restricted to allowing use of internet.pro only by credentialed professionals? If so, should these professionals need to be first verified by the Registrar or Registry before they could use your domain?

- The phrase "beneficial owner" is not contained in any language associated with ICANN or RegistryPro contracts or policies, so I can't say how it might apply to .pro (or any other gtld), but I will note that standard terms for every ICANN registrar contains language such as "Any Registrant that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registrant of record."

- Leasing is a standard practice in the domain industry with the leasing agent retaining responsibility for the domain. What restrictions do you have in leasing the internet.pro domain for online radio? How would this be policed or enforced?

- What about the outright sale of internet.pro? Do you have the right to transfer ownership of internet.pro while still providing the credentials for the third level domains? Or is this prohibited?

Best Regards,

Tom
EnCirca, Inc.

Tom, the set of domain names I mentioned in my post relate to two distinct credentials in two distinct organizations. I have only two third-level registrations and two corresponding second-level registrations. At bottom, the real party in interest of all of the domain names is a credentialed professional. That's the point you're not getting.

The ICANN registry agreement clearly reads: "Registered Names are restricted to persons and entities that are credentialed by appropriate entities."

Your e-mail announcement for .pro reads: "I am proud to introduce EnCirca's ProForwarding Service. EnCirca knocks down the barriers to obtaining .pro domain names. Available exclusively from EnCirca. Now anyone can register a second-level .pro domain name, like business.pro. No proof of credentials are required."

How can you read the ICANN restriction and your marketing statement as consistent? "No proof of credentials required"?

Bret,

Of course professional credentials are required and are provided by EnCirca as part of its ProForwarding service. ProForwarding is the registrant for these domains and thus reponsible for its use.

But there are no restrictions for leasing these domains to third parties. So, our marketing statement is consistent.

You have chosen to use your domain names a certain way, but there is no language in the contracts restraining you. And no presumptive language either.

We're arguing about something that simply does not exist.

Tom

You're focusing on the lack of use restrictions but not the credentialing requirement for the registrant. You've placed Encirca in the position of registrant but you can't deny that the real party in interest / beneficial owner / true registrant, whatever you want to call it, is a third-party who, in most cases, in non-credentialed. The credentialing language in the contracts is pretty clear. -- Bret

I believe that EnCirca's spate of .Pro registrations is contrary to the purpose the .Pro registry.

Thomas Barrett to IcannWatch and CircleID:
"All EnCirca .pro registrations have verified credentials prior to the activation of their domain name"

EnCirca customer:
"There was absolutely no verification performed by Encirca as part of the process. It was simply sign up, pay $49, and 'viola'."

Excuse me, but how do you square that circle? The customer's .pro domain was registered and activated. His credentials were not checked at all.

But the whole point of the .Pro registry being established is that credentials are established in advance.

And if you say, "Well, EnCirca are the Registrant and its their own credentials that are verified" then you are admitting that the domain owner who gets the domain doesn't actually have to profess a profession at all, there's no checking of them, it's all up to them...

That is the *opposite* of what the ICANN Agreement intends!!!

You may as well let everyone get a domain, and it's OK, because the registrar have some kind of credentials.

... And that is exactly what appears to have happened.

EnCirca seem to have over-ruled the concept of .Pro as a "restricted" TLD and opened it to everyone. Very democratic, but not what this particular restricted TLD is supposed to be for.

Personally I believe that ICANN should define its own Agreements - the Agreements should not be routed round and subverted by an individual registrar.

If you don't agree with my view, that's your prerogative and I wish you well.

However, I believe EnCirca have acted in defiance of the real intent and purpose of the .Pro Agreement - they are distributing .pro domains to anyone and ignoring ICANN's wishes that each customer should be carefully verified. You get your domain without any verification at all.

There are other gTLDs for that approach, but .Pro is not supposed to be one of them.

I just don't think it is for EnCirca to decide that the policy of scrupulous verification should be abandoned.

I'm not sure ICANN will accept it either. Nor should they.

Yrs,

Richard H

Hey Rich,

I tried to leave an opposing comment on LE CIRCLEID. Your system locked me out. What's up with that Richy?

Michael J. Silver

Dear Proutopians,

Welcome to the real world. .PRO, like any other product or service, reflects a balancing of interests. Some of those interests will be “higher minded”, if you will. Some, undoubtably, will be profit motivated. Even your better law practices have to balance such concerns when deciding if and how to handle a case, lest they cease to continue as a practice. It would appear that .PRO, in its strictest form, was not practical. Therefore, adjustments were made. The adjustments have been restricted to the sale of second level domains. Third level domains, which reflect the heart of the PRO concept, remain unchanged. I would know, as I recently had to respond to an inquiry from the Registry regarding the confirmation of my legal credentials. As to matters of contract, justices typically interpret same in such a manner as to carry out the expectations of the parties. Prior to March 3, 2005, there were approximately five .PRO sites in operation. As an attorney, and one who has entered into contract for the purchase of both second and third level .PRO domains, I can tell you that my expectations, prior to March 3, 2005, were not being met. Now, just as .Pro is beginning to become relevant, there are those seeking to put .PRO back in the ground. I, for one, will vigorously defend against such individuals. I thank you for your attention.

Michael J. Silver

Hi Michael.

I understand the argument you (and others) are putting forward. However I just don't agree with them. You say "Adjustments were made". In fact, it was a registrar, uninvited by ICANN, who decided to change the nature of the Registry and access to it, by enabling anyone to obtain .pro domains without any certification. My argument is that this is not what the .Pro Registry was for, and anyway if any changes were ever made, it was for ICANN - in the context of its whole NewTLD programme - to decide that. It is not for a single registrar to re-define ICANN's policy and alter the purpose and methods of ICANN's Registry Agreement.

Michael, as a private individual you are entitled to take your own chances and obtain as many domains as you can. However, the large number of .Pro domains you have obtained in the past weeks suggests that you have a particular vested interest in this debate. Just a few of the many domains you have obtained recently are:

adult.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 22nd Feb
advertising.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 21st Feb
africa.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 18th Feb
apartment.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 14th Feb
apartments.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 14th Feb
asia.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 18th Feb
asian.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 5th March
audio.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 2nd March
auto.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 16th Feb
banker.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 25th Feb
beach.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 4th March
birthdays.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 6th March
boats.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 5th March
book.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 22nd Feb
cars.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 16th January
casino.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 8th January
casinos.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 14th Feb
chat.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 10th Feb
city.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 18th Feb
computer.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 30th Nov 2004
city.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 18th Feb
cosmetic.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 22nd Feb
creditcard.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 19th Jan
drugs.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 21st Feb
education.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 21st Feb
euro.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 11th Feb
europe.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 18th Feb
film.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 23rd Feb
finance.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 20th Jan
fitness.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 17th Feb
food.pro ... Michael Silver ... EnCirca ... 18th Feb

And what possible relevance to "professional" status can his domain http://www.cunt.pro have? (registered by EnCirca)

This last example typifies why I think the .Pro registry has been subverted and tainted.

I believe ICANN will have to act to protect its process.

Yours,

Richard Henderson

Richard,

In all fairness, some content restrictions----ie. profanity and pornography---may be appropriate for .PRO. I would not be opposed to un-registering such domains should ICANN or ENCIRCA decide to go that way. Again, its a matter of balance. I thank you for your comments.

Michael J. Silver

Where are you licensed to practice?

So what's your point?

As I expected, the Registry are laying down the challenge to ICANN, and defying them to stop them from 'evolving' .Pro into what is effectively a new and opened up gTLD:

http://www.registrypro.pro/forum/

"It has come to the attention of RegistryPro that some .pro name holders are licensing their domain names to parties who may not themselves qualify for a .pro domain name."

"Once a .pro domain is appropriately purchased, RegistryPro does not assume control over the use of that name. This includes the secondary market and licensing programs referenced above."

What RegistryPro is saying in this message is that they know perfectly well that EnCirca is registering thousands of names in EnCirca's own name, then selling ownership of these domains to the general public without any checking of individuals' credentials whatsoever (although the intention of setting up the .Pro Registry was that it should only be open to people whose credentials had been rigorously checked)...

And then RegistryPro appears to be saying that once they've got their share of the money, they will allow this opening up of .Pro to the general public to continue. They seem to be saying that, without consultation with ICANN, they are going to take the money, and preside over the dismantling of the intent and purposes of the .Pro Agreement as set out by ICANN.

To this extent, RegistryPro and EnCirca appear to be in complicity. At the very least, you would think that the .Pro Registry would turn to ICANN and ask for their view on this effective re-writing of .Pro.

Whatever words RegistryPro uses, they *know* that they are opening up a registry that was supposed to be credentialled and restricted.

ICANN may have a different view on whether this respects the Agreement and Understanding they made with RegistryPro, not to mention the time and money invested by consumers who invested in .Pro because of the way it was defined.

Were other Registrars consulted by RegistryPro?

What RegistryPro and EnCirca appear to be trying to do - including this RegistryPro Forum just launched today... "It has come to our attention..." when they know perfectly well what has been going on in the past month... is that they are trying to push forward to a new "status quo" regardless of ICANN's position and the purposes of ICANN's Agreement. ICANN has been used and they are trying to railroad it to their own 'new reality'.

De facto - if not on a technical detail - .Pro is being turned into an open gTLD.

Yrs,

Richard Henderson

Re: In search of progmatic intelligence

The other day, I responded to commentary by Richard Henderson with an opposing viewpoint, and was essentially vilified. Perhaps I mistakenly stepped on some very big toes. The next day, the moderator of Lextext, in a seemingly loaded manner, was questioning my bar admission status. That said, let me say that I do believe that Brett Fausett does on whole perform a great public service by bringing important mattters to the forefront in a sustantially neutral fashion. I hope he can understand why I would be guarded at that point and time. If he will contact me in a more private forum, I will be happy to answer his questions.

That said, I don't feel it is appropiate to go out of someone's way in attempt to "out" somebody. I happen to be a fairly private person. Otherwise, I would be better known in these circles. I assure you that I have the wherewithall to do battle with the Mr. Henderson's of this world (and that's not intended as a insult to Mr. Henderson). My only criticism of Mr. Henderson is his means of winning a point. That is, indeed, my only criticism of Mr. Henderson. I look forward to learning more about him. Its obvious that he has earned respect in his field for a reason. And I acknowledge that my initial comments were somewhat combative.

While I don't believe I ever tried to hide the fact, I do, indeed, have a vested interest in .PRO. I have invested signficant sums in .PRO, most prior to March 3, 2005. I didn't know what was to occur on March 3, 2005. Had I known, I might have suggested a more moderate course to Mr. Barret. And as I started to suggest in a recent response to Mr. Henderson, some pullback may be necessay. But I don't believe that a vested viewpoint is one to be dismissed. You are free to consider it for what it is, but it is s sincere viewpoint, nonetheless. So if you're still reading, here goes:

My entry onto the .PRO landsape was in essence, a blind one. I paid $1500.00 for all of five .law.pro domains. I did so without so much as any html knowledge nor even an understanding of the distinction between a third and second level domain. I assure you that I take no pride in this. I was driven strictly by the third level concept of establishing a legal presence on the interest. Also, as someone who has always come late to the party, I wanted to go a different way. I knew there was risk. What I had traditionally shunned, this time, I embraced.

The months that followed were extremely dissapointing. There were no sites. I came to learn through my efforts take advantage of the void, that in fact, the better domains were merely being reserved so as to deny their development by competitors. .PRO, whatever the reasons, was for all intense purposes, irrelevant. My investment had been for not. I never even developed my sites for fear of throwing bad money after bad.

While I'm not sure I agree with everything Tom Barret did, I happen to admire his overall hutzpah, so to speak. Say what you want (and I might agree with you to an extent) but he takes the bull by the horns. I'm reminded of a line from an NBC show wherein, when all is said and done, the host says something to the effect of "fear was definitely not a factor for you"

Let me add, as a customer and a professional, should Encirca or the .Pro registry even think of compromising the third level scheme, I will be the first in their face and I invite any such information. I worked my ass off, with then-undiagnosed adult ADD and other limitations, to earn my law degree and bar admission. As to second level registrations, some measure of flexibility is a necessary evil. Cunt.pro may have to go. But clan.pro, hollywood.pro and tennis.pro, etc (none of which I own or have an interest in) must live. Why? So that law.pro, med.pro, cpa.pro, eng.pro and others to follow will be relevant.

Finally, I understand that others will disagree, some of whom will include professionals. But attack please my opinions if you must, not my integrity. (That's for all the other people on the web who are shy and sensitive. We do exist and need to voice our opinions as well). I thank you for your patience and attention.

Michael J. Silver

Loaded question? I suppose. According to West's, there are six "Michael J. Silver"'s licensed to practice in the US: two in NY, one in MO, one in KS, one in CA, and one in MD. Which one are you?

Brett,

I believe I have your email address at your place of business. With your consent, and only with your consent, I'll contact you there within the next day or two. I have provided my name, while others often refrain. If I am not to be given some modicum of privacy on this site, than I will post where such tokens are afforded. I thank you.

Michael Silver

Michael,

I have no quarrel with you. I don't know who you are and I assure you I am a hugely insignificant person - a school teacher with a young family. As far as I'm concerned, you're able to register/lease as many domains as someone is prepared to sell you.

My argument is not about personalities. It is about the fact that the internet should be a worldwide resource for the whole world. It should be accountable to the people who actually use it. It should be available to more and more people. It should operate in a way which is clear, and lawful, and consistent. I have taken the view for several years that the "Domain Industry" should operate in a way which protects consumers, respects contracts, and ensures the fair distribution of the DNS.

My argument in the past has been with ICANN (a US quango which is accountable only to the DOC of one country) because, having established trading practices for consumers, it failed to uphold those practices through its established Agreements with Registries and Registrars. As a result, some Registrars and Registries operated as if "our" (that is, the world's) Internet was a wild west frontier. They flouted the arrangements that ICANN had set up for consumers. And ICANN let them.

In this .Pro debate, I argue again that established Agreements should be upheld, both in spirit and in law, because I believe the Internet and its DNS should recognise agreements and contracts.

To repeat: if you end up with good .Pro names because ICANN lets you, then I have no argument with you. It's just not a personal issue about you. However, your registration/leasing practices are a very good demonstation of what has been happening as EnCirca and RegistryPro try to break free from ICANN's contracts and restrictions.

I believe absolutely that .Pro was created by ICANN to be a strictly limited registry. In my opinion, it is ICANN (and not a lone registrar) who should determine policy. This policy is part of a wider policy, the New TLDs Process, which has involved hundreds or thousands of hours of formulation. .Pro was deliberately selected, because it was different from .com or .info. ICANN created it to be different.

I believe that Agreements and due process should be followed. And due process in this case involves ICANN defining its own Agreements: not EnCirca deciding to hijack their agenda and make .Pro into something completely different.

I have not set out to vilify you, Michael. What you have registered, you have registered. It's all available for the public to see. I'm interested in rational arguments (including yours). I'm interested in the logic of an internet which is orderly and accountable to the people who actually use it.

For that reason, I criticise ICANN for expelling the elected representatives of individual internet users from their Boardroom. But I also criticise EnCirca and Registrypro in this instance - because they seem to be defying an agreement and process (or certainly its intentions) and I don't think they should determine this matter. The future shape and nature of the Internet should be determined rationally and through agreed processes - not by a lone registrar who sees the chance to make quick money.

Yrs,

Richard Henderson

Richard,
I respect your goals. You have a global perspective on these matters that I have yet to gain. As time goes on, and I learn more, we may find that we share much common ground. However, as a major stakeholder in the .PRO label, globalism, at this point and time, is simply a luxury that I can not afford. All my best.

Michael Silver