<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: Re[2]: [ga] domain tastinmg comments
- To: "'Karl Peters - TLDA'" <tlda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] domain tastinmg comments
- From: Shane Kinsch <shane.kinsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:21:11 -0500
Hi Karl –
I’m referring to a broad scale and wide abuse of the AGP. This situation is
more of an “opportunity” they are exploiting you with and has nothing to do
with tasting domains, unless they actually parked it and analyzed the
traffic/revenue over a 1 year period w/o contact the .org/.net registrants.
The people (not Registrars, but possibly) that have engaged in the activity of
registering .com versions of your .org or .net and contacting you see what
they’re doing as a benefit to the .org/.net registrant. More often, and it’s
almost a guarantee, the speculator will just register the .com version of a
.net/.org and call it good, park it and making no contact with the other TLD
registrants unless they wanted to flip it.
Overall, the people that pay the $295 “acquisition fee” in my opinion actually
want the .com variant and it possibly was registered previously when they
choose the .net/.org/.tv/.ws/.cc, etc. that is now available. Keep in mind,
there is a minimum backorder fee for NameJet ($65 for some) and SnapNames ($100
for some) and possibly go to auction at much higher than $295.
The act of registering the .com to flip it to the registrant of a .net/.org is
not domain tasting. Domain tasting overall is at a grand scale, not minor.
It’s the major players that have abused this, or I should say .. found a
weakness and exploited it.
Removing the AGP all together without providing for a means where a Registrar
can recoup their expenses from fraudulent activities won’t work and is wrong
(double opt-in won’t work either). The gaps need to be filled and filled with
discouraging fines or overhead expenses that break the abusers business model
without distressing legitimate Registrars.
Shane
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Karl Peters - TLDA
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:54 AM
To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Shane Kinsch
Cc: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] domain tastinmg comments
> In general, you pay a fine of $2,851,200 just to sample 18,000,000 domain
> names in a year and keep only the ones that barely pay for themselves. Thats
> not good business sense anyway you look at it. I would estimate a much
> higher drop rate such as 90+%.
>
> If ICANN would enact a penalty as such, that anything over a nominal
> percentage is charged $0.20/drop would take care of this and everyone else.
> The legit registrars are happy and the tasters/kiters will go away. Its not
> feasible for them to keep operating.
So you want to talk about numbers and feasibility instead of right and wrong?
OK...
Let's say a scammer picks up 500 domains under this tasting policy and
sends out solicitations as we have described and discussed to sell them at $295
per domain for people to "complete" their registrations of the major TLDs'
domains of their name.
Let's say that of these five hundred names that are tied up and
unavailable for consumers for a week (perhaps the one time they will try for
that name for some time to come, if they are not sufficiently skeptical and
aware of the effects of tasting), they successfully sell 2 of them, but for
less than advertised.
Let's say they settle for $500.00 for the two registrations they sell
and then return the other 498 domains at $0.20 each penalty, or $99.60. This
scammer just made a profit of $400.40 for one week of free e-mails based on
improper marketing of unregistered domains and I still have no example of any
corporation who has used this program as it was intended.
-Karl E. Peters
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|