RE: [ga] ICANN Board can intervene to stop domain tasting for 1 year

["Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,
 
I fully agree. $0.20 re-registration fee is an insufficient solution. I
am always feeling some sort of domain speculation in mind when listening
to such proposals. If I cannot order a pizza and then cancel the order
just paying $0.20 fine, why should have I an extra privilege regarding
domain names?
As far as we know, the AGP concept was never officially addressed or
discussed during the .com registry agreement process. No one knows, or
wants to say what actually happened behind the closed doors during the
agreement approval. Therefore, in my opinion, the AGP has no legitimate
background to be further supported. It is just a neverending source of
problems, despite of all proclaimed 'benefits' it allegedly brings.
 
Dominik

________________________________

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Jeffrey A. Williams
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 11:22 PM
To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ICANN Domain name tasting
Cc: twomey@xxxxxxxxx; roberto@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Board can intervene to stop domain tasting for 1
year


George and all, 

  I disagree that using a $0.25 fee to address this problem will be 
effective or is fair to potential ligitimate registrants/users.  NSI and

any other Registrars or Registries should be made/forced to discontinue 
this practice and police adaquately without additional cost, their 
operations and ICANN which has oversite responsibility should be 
held directly responsible for correcting/eliminating this errant
practice 
as after all, it was ICANN that created the problem in the first place 
even after being warned long in advance. 

Regards, 

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) 
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - 
   Abraham Lincoln 

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is 
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt 

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; 
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by 
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." 
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] 
=============================================================== 
Updated 1/26/04 
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. 
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC. 
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail 
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
My Phone: 214-244-4827 

George Kirikos wrote: 

        Hello, 

        --- Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx> wrote: 
        > malicious in result as domain tasting itself. If not stopped,
it is 
        > likely that other registrars will be encouraged to do the same
as 
        > this 
        > practice currently gives NSI an advantage over other
registrars. As a 
        > result, the registrants will become victims impelled to
register 
        > domains 
        > at registrar at which they did the first (and last) whois
lookup. 

        Right, the arms race would escalate and be destabilizing to the 
        registration system. Just as an example of some numbers, more
than 
        50,000 domain names were reserved yesterday, making NSI #2 for
most 
        active nameservers: 

        http://www.dailychanges.com/ 
        
http://www.dailychanges.com/detail/?ns=RESERVEDDOMAINNAME.COM&date=2008-
01-10&net=49807&changes=50162&act=n 

        > Both practices have one thing in common, exploiting the AGP. 
        > Elimination 
        > of the AGP seems to be more and more the most effective
solution to 
        > avoid both and all similar AGP-related practices. That is
something 
        > we 
        > both can agree upon. 

        And I believe NSI wants this too. According to PC World: 

        
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/141256/network_solutions_s
tands_by_name_policy.html 

        "Mitchell added that if ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names 
        and Numbers), the organization that oversees the domain name
system, 
        would move to cut down on these type of scams, then his company 
        wouldn't have to engage in this kind of automatic search
registration. 
        "We would be perfectly happy to end this process if ICANN or the

        registries would do something to protect small businesses or
other 
        small users," he said. 

        A US$0.25 non-refundable domain name registration fee would
probably be 
        enough to make domain tasting or front running unprofitable, he
added." 

        I'm glad Mitchell agrees that making it uneconomic for automated

        abusers is the way to go. Whether it's a non-refundable fee, or
some 
        other method that would impose a real economic cost in a
different way 
        (similar to how CAPTCHAs attempt to reduce spam), in case a 
        non-refundable fee doesn't fly (or violates a contract). E.g.
forcing 
        registrars to receive deletion requests on a domain by domain
basis 
        (above a certain fractional basis relative to kept domains), 1
piece of 
        physical 8.5"x11" paper per request, signed by the registrant or
the 
        registrar,  and have those requests available for ICANN
inspection, 
        stored for 7 years, would do the trick. An abuser deleting 1
million 
        names would have to store 1 million pages of paper for 7 years.
That'd 
        take up a lot of space! :) And imagine the time spent
individually 
        signing 1 million pages of paper? (i.e. make rules that one
can't use 
        an automated signature, but it has to be a pencil/penl) :) I'm
sure we 
        can brainstorm equivalent CAPTCHAs to knock out abusive 
        deletions/frontrunning. 

        Sincerely, 

        George Kirikos 
        http://www.kirikos.com/