Re: [ga] Call for Elimination of AGP

[jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Chris and all,

  Of course.  And this scenerio will not likely change
much by technical means alone which is WHY I suggested
additionally that oversite 24/7 by ICANN staff as well
as policy that prohibits such errant nonsense to prevent
Tasting be strictly enforced.  That being if Registries
and Registrars don't police their operations, than they
loose their accreditation. <full stop>

  Playing "Lets make a deal" so to speak will never
suffice for long, if at all initially.

  Danny said it right, if ICANN doesn't do it's
duty, than governments will and some already have
started to do so.  Government regulation will commence
in ernest if ICANN continues to do a lack luster job
of controling it's registries and registrars appropriately.

-----Original Message-----
>From: chris@xxxxxx
>Sent: Mar 28, 2008 9:30 PM
>To: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: twomey@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ga] Call for Elimination of AGP
>
>
>It will work like antivirus works. You make a program that detects and 
>removes viruses and they write new viruses. You write or build security into 
>your server and hackers find another way to get it. You technically try to 
>block scripts and techniques used by kiters and tasters and they write new 
>ones. The only difference being that ICANN and the registries will never 
>work as hard to keep the new viruses (Taster techniques) from working as the 
>antivirus people do with viruses.
>
>Chris McElroy, NameCritic, Inc.
>http://www.articlecontentprovider.com
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: <twomey@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 5:30 PM
>Subject: Re: [ga] Call for Elimination of AGP
>
>
>>
>> Chris and all,
>>
>>  Of course what you suggest is indeed possible and
>> perhaps likely.  But do we really know that?  I
>> am not sure we do.  What we do know given the history
>> of poor oversight by ICANN staff, is that registrars
>> and registries will do whatever they wish with reletive
>> impunity unless ICANN takes direct, immediate and at times
>> drastic action such as  suspension or revocation of
>> Accreditation.  If such was enforced a few times, I
>> have little doubt that the technically avaliable solutions
>> will work just fine.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>>From: chris@xxxxxx
>>>Sent: Mar 28, 2008 10:19 AM
>>>To: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>Subject: Re: [ga] Call for Elimination of AGP
>>>
>>>
>>>And for every limitation, they will create a workaround as with 
>>>everything.
>>>
>>>Chris McElroy
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>From: <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:42 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [ga] Call for Elimination of AGP
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ross and all,
>>>>
>>>>  I agree that eliminating the AGP isn't necessary, but
>>>> niether is limiting it to 24 hrs.  A technical registration
>>>> software fix to disregard script registration attempts
>>>> and tracking multipul registrations transactions from the
>>>> same registrant as well as limiting the number of domain
>>>> name registrations per transaction to a fixed number, say
>>>> 10, would do the trick IMO.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>Sent: Mar 27, 2008 12:46 PM
>>>>>To: chris@xxxxxx
>>>>>Cc: John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>Subject: Re: [ga] Call for Elimination of AGP
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think eliminating it is pretty harsh, but I agree with most of your
>>>>>concerns with the current proposals. My preference would instead be to
>>>>>limit the AGP to a very short period (i.e. less than 24 hours) so that
>>>>>mistakes can still be fixed, but that the potential for abuse is kept
>>>>>to an absolute minimum. Mistakes do happen, and speaking as someone
>>>>>who inadvertently let loose a test script on the registry and
>>>>>registered hundreds of useless names, I would like to keep the
>>>>>potential to fix these types of mistakes when they occasionally
>>>>>happen. I'm less concerned about fraud because this is something that
>>>>>we can actively control through tight monitoring and screening of
>>>>>credit cards, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>On Mar 27, 2008, at 3:05 PM, <chris@xxxxxx> <chris@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> So do I. I think I hear a consensus stampeding toward us. Of course
>>>>>> this is just a bottom up consensus which ICANN has repeatedly
>>>>>> ignored in the past.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris McElroy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: John Palmer
>>>>>> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:27 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ga] Call for Elimination of AGP
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have yet to hear of a valid reason for domain tasting. Karl is
>>>>>> correct. There should not be any refunds for domain
>>>>>> registrations at all for people who are repeat offenders. There
>>>>>> isn't any place for this nonsense as
>>>>>> it takes up valuable resources that no one gets paid for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I support the call for elimination of the AGP as well.
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: Karl Peters - TLDA
>>>>>> To: Dominik Filipp
>>>>>> Cc: domain-tasting-motion@xxxxxxxxx ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:16 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ga] Call for Elimination of AGP
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        I heartily second the "call for Elimination of AGP" as posted
>>>>>> by Dominik Filipp and for reasons explained on the GA list in  the
>>>>>> past week and for reasons not yet even enumerated. No one has yet
>>>>>> spotlighted even one PROPER use of the domain tasting by a major
>>>>>> corporation in market study and the arguments for protection of
>>>>>> registrars from credit card fraud and the like are no more
>>>>>> compelling that ANY internet sales related company's difficulty.
>>>>>> Registrars who can not handle the business should drop out of it, as
>>>>>> in any other industry. What makes them special?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Karl E. Peters
>>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Jeffrey A. Williams
>>>> 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
>>>> Phone: 214-244-4827
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jeffrey A. Williams
>> 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
>> Phone: 214-244-4827
>>
>> 
>
Regards,

Jeffrey A. Williams
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
Phone: 214-244-4827