Re: [ga] Call for Elimination of AGP

[<chris@xxxxxx>]

When I have to use ccTLDs for clients to get them a relevant domain name 
rather than having dot coms available for them then I know that there is a 
serious problem. The problem is created by ICANN in more ways than one.
1. Domain tasting is holding thousands if not millions of domain names off 
the market and unavailable for clients to register. ICANN could solve this 
by eliminating the AGP and chooses not to solve the problem. This is 
collusion with the domain tasting and domain kiting industry. And yes it is 
an industry. Companies are in the "business" of domain kiting and domain 
tasting. This is not a few speculators using a loophole in the system. This 
is a business that is being helped by registrars, registries and ultimately 
ICANN. Part oif it is actually illegal when tasters and kiters are 
registering trademarked names. Since ICANN, registrars and registries are 
facilitating this illegal activity may not be provable as racketeering but 
it is. Again, it is not likely to result in racketeering charges because the 
facilitation would be difficult to prove, but everyone knows that there are 
registries and registrars who profit from this and that want it to continue 
and ICANN does not wish to stop the practice even though it is their job to 
do so.
2. Limiting the number of TLDs that are created. ICANN helps registrars like 
Network Solutions to create a false shortage of domain names by not 
approving more TLDs. They say that Internet stability could be compromised 
by the creation of more TLDs which is total BS. The creation of more TLDs 
will in know way threaten the stability of the Internet. This has been 
proven. ICANN has purposely complicated the process of someone managing a 
new TLD to make sure that Verisign, NetSol, and others continue to maintain 
this false shortage of domain names.
First, it is none of ICANN's business what my business plan is for the new 
TLD I want to create no more than it is the city's business why I want a 
business license. The city does not ask me for my business plan. I pay the 
fee and they give me the license. Why? Free enterprise. I can imlement any 
business plan I want. I not only have the freedom to succeed at business, I 
also have the freedom to fail. ICANN's staff or BoD is not qualified to 
speculate about my business plan and whether it is viable or not. They have 
no crystal ball. Furthermore I believe that since approving the business 
plan is part of the process, if one of these companies managing a TLD does 
fail, ICANN is liable right along with them because they approved the 
business plan. ICANN threatens the stability of the Internet by making the 
organization that is supposed to be focused on running the DNS liable by 
making themselves appear to be business experts and approving or 
disapproving business plans.
Second, it is not ICANN's job to review my financial capablities before 
granting me a TLD to manage. They are not business finance experts and ICANN 
is not in the business of advising on such matters. Again, ICANN is there to 
manage the DNS, not to be a financial advisor or a consumer protection 
agency. They should be focused on making sure that enough domain names, 
viable domain names, are available to users who want one.
Third, it is anti-competitve. ICANN has helped to ensure that Verisign and 
others do not have more competition which is in DIRECT violation of their 
bylaws and mission statement. By keeping this false shortage alive they 
ensure these companies no viable competition will make it into the 
marketplace. They know they can approve a few like dot aero, dot museum and 
dot mobi and appear to be creating new tlds when they also know these are 
not tlds that will ever compete with dot com for commercial use. They refuse 
to consider commercially viable tlds like dot lawyer, dot medical, dot cpa, 
dot cars, etc. because they know that many businesses would much prefer 
these tlds over dot com. And if ICANN is ever pushed to create these, they 
will attempt to find a way to give them to the same companies that already 
manage dot com, net, org, biz, etc., again assuring these companies they 
will have no competition.
Fourth, ICANN violates free trade by refusing to allow me or anyone else to 
manage a TLD. It is not their right to tell me I cannot start a new TLD in 
the main root. It is only their right to be sure that I am technically 
capable of doing so. Give me dot lawyer and I can go to a bank and get the 
financing once assured I have the contract to manage that tld, so they have 
no need to review my finances beforehand. As far as business plan, I could 
have a business plan to give the domain names away and make no money from 
them at all. That may still be a viable business plan for me. They do not 
have the right to determine whether THEY think my business plan is viable or 
not.
When you couple the fact that ICANN purposely holds up the creation of new 
commercially viable TLDs with the fact that they also facilitate domain 
tasting and domain kiting that further the false shortage of domain names, 
even in the TLDs that do exist, then you get the picture of what ICANN is 
truly doing here.
Chris McElroy, NameCritic, Inc.
http://www.seo.pn



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>
To: "Ross Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 10:09 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] Call for Elimination of AGP


> Ross,
>
> This is a constructive dialog. You know very well how registries' and
> registrars' say is seriously being taken in the GNSO, much more than
> that of other stakeholders. When reading the GNSO conference transcripts
> discussing the drafted recommendations I am reading about registrars'
> concerns, registrars' needs, and registrars' impacts. The same for
> registries and somewhere also IP claims are presented. But I could not
> find any serious discussion about the most preferred suggestion
> explicitly expressed by the public to which the issue is targeted. My
> question is why? Why cannot the Council open serious discussion about
> the AGP elimination? I do not understand it at all. I am not going to
> speculate over this.
>
> In my posts, as well as other posts sent on the GA and other mailing
> lists, I am trying to collect as much facts as possible and trying to
> exclude emotional speech as regards the merits. Our comments and
> thoughts do not seem to have been seriously considered at GNSO and
> factual opposition has never been presented. Just silence.
>
> In my understanding there is no any legitimate reason for further
> keeping the AGP concept. Especially when we realize that AGP did not
> pass the standard PDP process. Most of the claims presented by
> registrars can be accomplished differently. Others cannot be accepted as
> domain registration business with all the abuse proven is simply not
> eligible for demanding such extra features. And I and others here see
> the elimination of AGP the solution of domain tasting abuse.
>
> I am sorry, but your wording about letting you pass the costs of your
> mistakes on to your customers is a weak argument for keeping the AGP or
> all its clones. The same can happen at credit card services and their
> resellers and they do not have any AGP. Simply, if someone makes a
> mistake it is his or her responsibility to cope with the consequences
> much like in any other business. If such mistakes persist for whatever
> reason it just shows that the business is not reliable enough and does
> not properly serve its customers.
>
> I know that elimination of AGP will have certain impact on registrars
> and perhaps also on registries. But I am convinced that there exists an
> acceptable workaround how to accomplish it without relying on AGP. There
> are many examples around. We on the GA can also be helpful in finding
> the workaround.
>
> Domain tasting is a colossal abuse committed on wide community of users,
> stakeholders and registrants. It is therefore the target audience to
> whom the final solution is to be addressed. Furthermore, they are
> customers of registrars and registries and as such they deserve honest
> and fair treatment. And registrars and registries are in position to
> serve them. That is why I used my perhaps a bit harsh wording 'I do not
> care'.
>
> Dominik
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Ross Rader
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 12:32 PM
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> GA
> Subject: Re: [ga] Call for Elimination of AGP
>
> On Mar 28, 2008, at 3:44 AM, Dominik Filipp wrote:
> > Pretty harsh for whom? For registrars, tasters, speculators? I do not
> > care. A big relief for all users/stakeholders/registrants all
> > registrars should be serving.
> Oh yeah sorry. I forgot that we don't get a say in the policies that
> affect us. I guess you'd prefer that we pass the costs of these mistakes
> on to our customers. Fine. I thought this was a constructive dialogue,
> but your big "screw you" comes through loud and clear.
>
> And people wonder why the GA doesn't get taken seriously.
>
> -ross