<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: Re[2]: [ga] domain tastinmg comments
- To: chris@xxxxxx
- Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] domain tastinmg comments
- From: Shane Kinsch <shane.kinsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:28:36 -0500
Chris – If there is no AGP, then the registrars are stuck with the fraud and
any other bad behavior. The Registrar biz is a highly competitive business so
register and transfer your portfolios to Global Internet http://gi.net ;)
Regardless, the cost is too great for the registrar in a cut-throat business to
have to absorb fraudulent activity without having some sort of recourse in
refunding most if not all of the registration costs.
People don’t want to double-opt-in. I can say that because of personal
experience. Timing is everything. If I were to register a few domains, the
first think I think of is, “I want it now”. I don’t want to wait on an email
or dependant on a 3rd party to deliver the confirmation message. You can
conduct your own study and you’ll see it holds true. The end user ( now use to
one click registration ) will highly complain about some double opt-in system
on each name they register. For example, I have Media customers who register
10 – 20 domains at a time and would cause too much strain on their operation to
have to ack each registration at this point, keep in mind, the whole purpose of
the email ack is that they read the whole thing to verify the domain name being
registered is the same one they are verifying? Why not just send them to
another page that says, are you really really sure you want to register this
domain?
Double opt-in doesn’t take into consideration my primary concern of fraudulent
registrations. The perp will still acknowledge their domain registrations with
a throw away gmail account leaving Registrars left holding the bag of crap
names. Double opt-in is just not feasible IMHO.
Shane Kinsch
From: chris@xxxxxx [mailto:chris@xxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 2:00 PM
To: Shane Kinsch; 'Karl Peters - TLDA'
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] domain tastinmg comments
Importance: High
What study did youn use to determine that double opt in would not work? I
always love it when someone has an opinion that something should be done the
way they like it and dismiss everything else without looking at it.
For every reason you can cite where the AGP benefits anyone, I can show you
five ways it is abused.
Chris McElroy
----- Original Message -----
From: Shane <mailto:shane.kinsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Kinsch
To: 'Karl <mailto:tlda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Peters - TLDA'
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 1:21 PM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] domain tastinmg comments
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
>>>
|