RE: Re[2]: [ga] domain tastinmg comments

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

Chris,
 
I would personally prefer duplicate check of domain name directly during
registration process. After typing a name of interest a new page with
the name in bold (red color, big font) appears requiring extra
confirmation. This could be sufficient.
 
Anyway, this all seems to me a pseudo-problem. An advantageous excuse
made up by registrars. I have never come across any such typo-correction
feature offered by registrars/resellers.
 
Dominik

________________________________

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of chris@xxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 8:00 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 Kinsch <mailto:shane.kinsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
        To: 'Karl Peters - TLDA' <mailto:tlda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
        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