Re: [registrars] Call for action - GNSO motion on Domain Tasting

[elliot noss <enoss@xxxxxxxxxx>]

my guess is they will be very happy to say "yep. you were were right.  
our claims were baseless. could you please make the cheque out  
to.......".

and for the record they backed way off those claims when asked to  
justify them.

On Apr 10, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Marcus Faure wrote:

> While we may think that the registry income is undue, I do not see the
> justification to have the funds go to ICANN. And BTW the grace period
> abuse was the registries' major argument to introduce the annual raise
> of the per-domain fee. When there is a financial balance for it,
> the argument goes away. While I do not believe that this will cause
> the stability of domain pricing, it will make it even more obvious
> that the registries' justification for price increases is pointless.
>
> > more undue revenue to registries? at least if it goes to ICANN it can
> > defray the fee that registrants pay.
> >
> > On Apr 10, 2008, at 4:13 AM, Marcus Faure wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I still do not understand - and have not found anyone who could
> > > explain
> > > to me - why in the 0.2$ model ICANN would receive the 0.2$
> > > completely. Shouldn't there rather be a split between ICANN and the
> > > registry based on the same proportion between registry price and  
> > > ICANN
> > > fee that is in place now?
> > >
> > > Marcus
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > * I am not sure how many Registrars are aware of this but as it
> > > > stands, it
> > > > seems the Registry constituency is now voting in favor of the GNSO
> > > > motion to
> > > > solve the domain tasting problem by imposing the full $7 fee on
> > > > each deleted
> > > > domain barring a 10% minimum (Please check
> > > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dt-wg/msg00532.html)
> > > >
> > > > * As has been discussed amongst the registrars, and in the last
> > > > meeting
> > > > acknowledged by some of the registries, as well as, more
> > > > specifically some
> > > > of the board members, this is far from an ideal solution. While a
> > > > set of
> > > > Registrars seem to be using the AGP for tasting, the AGP has  
> > > > several
> > > > legitimate uses that Mason and Joathan effectively communicated in
> > > > their
> > > > presentations. While it maybe argued that the proposal has a 10%
> > > > threshold,
> > > > there was reasonable consensus that this threshold is quite low and
> > > > poses
> > > > considerable risks to registrars (risks such as fraud, or API abuse
> > > > etc)
> > > >
> > > > * Given that the Board has already approved a 20 cent ICANN fee to
> > > > curb
> > > > Domain Tasting, and only the implementation thereof remains
> > > > pending, it does
> > > > not make sense for additional overlapping solutions especially ones
> > > > that are
> > > > onerous and out of the bounds of the scope of the problem itself
> > > >
> > > > * If the Registry Constituency ends up passing this motion then we
> > > > will have
> > > > so many mixed overlapping proposals for the same problem - an ICANN
> > > > board
> > > > proposal, the GNSO proposal, and the individual Registry Funnel
> > > > requests
> > > > which have also been approved
> > > >
> > > > * I believe our reps should discuss this further with the Registry
> > > > Constituency as well as the GNSO
> > > >
> > > > * I would like some more insight from our council members as to
> > > > what our
> > > > action plan should be / is
> > > >
> > > > * I wonder if there is any sense of the direction of the Board on
> > > > this one,
> > > > given that they have already adopted a view with their affirmation
> > > > of their
> > > > own proposal
> > > >
> > > > * I also believe that we should present a strong and compelling
> > > > position
> > > > from our side that clearly explains that the proposed GNSO motion  
> > > > is
> > > > overstepping its intentions considerably, and is impacting areas
> > > > beyond the
> > > > scope of the problem
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Warm Regards
> > > > Bhavin Turakhia
> > > > Founder, Chairman & CEO
> > > > Directi
> > > > -------------------------
> > > > http://www.directi.com
> > > > Blog: http://bhavin.directi.com
> > > > T: +91-22-66797600
> > > > M (US): +1 (415) 366 7762
> > > > M (IN): +91 9820097557
> > > > F: +91-22-66797510
> > > > -------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Global Village GmbH  Tel +49 2855 9651 0     GF Marcus Faure
> > > Mehrumer Str. 16     Fax +49 2855 9651 110   Amtsgericht Duisburg
> > > HRB9987
> > > D46562 Voerde        eMail info@xxxxxxxxxxx  Ust-Id DE180295363
>
>
> --
> Global Village GmbH  Tel +49 2855 9651 0     GF Marcus Faure
> Mehrumer Str. 16     Fax +49 2855 9651 110   Amtsgericht Duisburg  
> HRB9987
> D46562 Voerde        eMail info@xxxxxxxxxxx  Ust-Id DE180295363