<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re[4]: [ga] domain tastinmg comments
- To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re[4]: [ga] domain tastinmg comments
- From: Karl Peters - TLDA <tlda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:41:35 -0500
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head><title></title>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
<style type="text/css"><!--
body {
margin: 5px 5px 5px 5px;
background-color: #ffffff;
}
/* ========== Text Styles ========== */
hr { color: #000000}
body, table /* Normal text */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
font-style: normal;
font-weight: normal;
color: #000000;
text-decoration: none;
}
span.rvts1 /* Heading */
{
font-weight: bold;
color: #0000ff;
}
span.rvts2 /* Subheading */
{
font-weight: bold;
color: #000080;
}
span.rvts3 /* Keywords */
{
font-style: italic;
color: #800000;
}
a.rvts4, span.rvts4 /* Jump 1 */
{
color: #008000;
text-decoration: underline;
}
a.rvts5, span.rvts5 /* Jump 2 */
{
color: #008000;
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.rvts6
{
color: #993300;
}
span.rvts7
{
font-style: italic;
color: #993300;
}
span.rvts8
{
font-size: 9pt;
font-style: italic;
color: #993300;
}
span.rvts9
{
font-size: 9pt;
font-style: italic;
color: ;
}
span.rvts10
{
font-size: 9pt;
color: ;
}
span.rvts11
{
color: ;
}
span.rvts12
{
font-size: 9pt;
color: #993300;
}
/* ========== Para Styles ========== */
p,ul,ol /* Paragraph Style */
{
text-align: left;
text-indent: 0px;
padding: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.rvps1 /* Centered */
{
text-align: center;
}
--></style>
</head>
<body>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>> Hi Karl �</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>> 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.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8><br></span></p>
<p><span class=rvts11> None of that has anything to
do with the issue at hand, though that is certainly another issue for another
day...</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8><br></span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>> 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. </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8><br></span></p>
<p><span class=rvts11> This is interesting banter,
but I, for one, keep an active eye on these matters and know for a fact that
the tldainc.com was NOT registered during the previous year. I considered it a
few times myself, found it available and backed off. This is why I found it so
curious when the scammer approached me to sell me the name, implying he was
doing me a favor in some way to buy it from him for $295.00 instead of from my
registrar of choice for 8.99. Suspecting it was a fraudulent abuse of the
"tasting" scheme, I waited several days and did an inquiry to find the name was
indeed available again for $8.99. They had clearly used this loop-hole in
registration policy to gain temporary control over the domain without risk (I
consider 20 cents to be essentially without risk!) so as to milk me for an
exceptional fee for something that was really not his to begin with. </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts11> The principal reason I can
see for registrars to support such a policy is they feel the domain
registration business is too cut-throat and they themselves want to find ways
to make more from the information they carry. This allows them just this
opportunity. They stare at domain availability screens all day and snatch ones
they see hope for and try to special market them. Perhaps some of the registrar
staff are the scammers?</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8><br></span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8> 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.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8><br></span></p>
<p><span class=rvts11>Who is talking "backorder"? You are talking lots of
subjects, but not staying on THE subject at all! We are discussing "tasting"
and its relationship to fraud and unethical control of unpaid domain
names.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8><br></span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>> 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. </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8><br></span></p>
<p><span class=rvts11>No, PAYING for it and selling it is speculation, but if
they can return it to the pool for a minimal fee, that is "tasting". It can be
done one domain at a time, it appears; or on mass scale. To me, it is simply
different scales of the same problem.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8><br></span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8> It�s the major players that have abused this, or I should
say .. found a weakness and exploited it.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts6><br></span></p>
<p><span class=rvts11>Again, who are these major players? Point one out and
tell us what they did...</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8><br></span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>> 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.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>> Shane</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p>If proper and ethical sales of domains is not a secure enough business,
perhaps only the TLD holder should do it and not leave you guys out in the
risky waters!!! No one forced anyone into that business; it is easy to get into
and easy to operate with proper software and sufficient bandwidth. Perhaps
there are too many registrars in the market and that reduces the sales volume
for each such that they can not adequately carry the same risks of doing
business on the internet that EVERY other business must face every day.</p>
<p><br></p>
<p>-Karl E. Peters</p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
</body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|