Re: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal registration activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules

[<chris@xxxxxx>]

Here is a letter written to ICANN in 2004 from Bob Parsons. 
http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/pdf/100804_letter_iyd.pdf

This is from april of 2006 

"35 million names registered in April. 32 million were part of a kiting scheme. 
A serious problem gets worse. 

In a nutshell, here's how domain kiting works.
Domain kiting registrars put up mini-Web sites - loaded with search engine 
links - for domains names for which they never pay. When people land on these 
Web sites and click on the links, money is made. It's easy to spot one of these 
registrars as the number of total registrations they make often far exceed the 
number of permanent registrations - or names for which they actually pay. This 
is why during the month of April 2006, out of 35 million registrations, only a 
little more than 2 million were permanent or actually purchased. The vast 
majority of the rest were part of the domain kiting scheme. 

Now let's drill down a little further into domain kiting 101.
A registrar who participates in this scheme - Go Daddy and its affiliates do 
not participate in this scheme - makes a large deposit - sometimes a huge 
deposit - at a registry. Then the registrar registers as many domain names as 
the deposit will allow. For example, if the registrar makes a $600,000 deposit 
at VeriSign Registry, they could register 100,000 .COM domain names as .COM 
names cost $6.00 per year."

Now if registrars are engaged in domain kiting how do you assume that 
registrars and registries opinion of how to solve this issue should carry more 
weight than any user on this list or any user on the web for that matter. Since 
it is the very industry doing the domain kiting, why should recommendations 
from that industry be taken seriously regarding this issue?

It's not like it just now happened and your industry is taking progressive 
steps to police it. It was going on since before 2004. So where were the other 
registries and registrars, excluding Bob Parsons, who did speak out, when it 
was going on then? Where was your outrage at a few rogue registrars abusing the 
AGP? It was ignored because there was no public outrage. Now that there is, the 
registries and registrars step up and tell us that they will take the lead to 
solve this problem and that we should all just trust you. As you said our 
mistrust of the registries and registrars and ICANN is no reason to suggest the 
elimination of the AGP.

Had all of the "legitimate" registries and registrars stepped up to solve this 
issue in 2004, maybe it would be different. Maybe you could raise the issue 
that you should be trusted to come up with a solution. But that did not happen 
did it? And as far as trusting ICANN to solve the domain kiting and tasting 
issue, why are we just now addressing this? Where were they then? Where have 
they been on every single issue? On the side of big business and registrars and 
registries and never on the side of users. 

The abuse of the AGP has hurt small business owners and users by creating a 
false shortage of domain names. The registries and registrars and ICANN allowed 
it to happen. Now we should just trust them to fix it? Why? What evidence or 
prior good acts can you point to that suggests that this industry or ICANN 
deserves that trust?

More from Bob Parsons;

Domain kiting registrars abuse the 5 day refund period to work their scheme.
After a domain name is registered, a registrar has five days to cancel a domain 
name registration - i.e. drop the name - and get their money back. Domain 
kiting registrars abuse this rule and cancel the lion's share of the names they 
register just before the five day period expires - so they get their money 
back. But then something unexpected happens. After names are cancelled or 
dropped, the domain kiting registrar goes out and immediately registers the 
same names again. The domain kiting registrar will then put the same simple Web 
site back up for each domain name, wait another five days and then cancel all 
the names again - just in time to get a full refund. And for most names caught 
up in the domain kiting scheme, this process will repeat itself over and over 
and over. 

Meet DirectNIC.
You might find the registration statistics of DirectNIC somewhat interesting. 
DirectNIC registered more than 8.4 million domain names in April 2006, but only 
permanently registered - or paid for - 51.4 thousand of those. The trend was 
the same in March, when DirectNIC registered 7.6 million names and only 
permanently registered - or paid for - 52.5 thousand. Whatever could DirectNIC 
be doing? Why are they dropping and re-registering all those names - again - 
and again - and again? And why doesn't ICANN care?

But wait, there's more - many more.
And the list of registrars, that register many more domain names than they 
actually purchase, goes on and on. 

ICANN fiddles while the Domain system burns.
I will point out that at this time, unlike check kiting - there is nothing 
illegal about domain kiting. Of course, domain kiting should be illegal. ICANN 
is perfectly happy with the practice. In spite of many complaints they have 
done nothing to put an end to it. 

ICANN's favorite comment.
Since my last blog article a number of people have contacted ICANN and quite 
predictably, but sadly, ICANN has had no comment. 

Domain kiting is out of control and must be stopped.
This domain kiting practice needs to be stopped. It benefits only those few 
organizations that are pillaging the domain name system. It takes millions of 
good names off the system, and makes them unavailable for the purposes for 
which those names were originally intended. It places an unnecessary burden on 
every registry. 

You said that "There are a lot of conclusory statements made in the e-mails 
calling for the abolishment of the AGP. Yet, there is little evidence behind 
those conclusions."

When has there not been evidence? None of the above statements by Bob Parsons 
refers to evidence of registrars engaging in domain kiting?

You also said, "evidence was presented by the Registrars on how the AGP was 
used for legitimate purposes."

And you do not expect them to come up with reasons to keep the AGP when some of 
them benefit from it in non-legitmate ways?

You say "Neither the registries nor the registrars will support the abolishment 
of the AGP because of these legitimate purposes."

Are you sure that is the reason? Do you ask us to believe that only "legitimate 
reasons motivate the registrars to keep the AGP? None of them want to keep it 
for other reasons? Where does Bob Parsons stand on the issue?

Then you say "The fact that your gut tells you there could in theory be issues 
or that you general distrust registries, registrars and ICANN is NOT a basis to 
call for the abolishment of the AGP, where legitimate uses have been 
demonstrated."

Questions

Where has this trust been earned in regards to the issue of domain tasting and 
domain kiting? 

Did you write the proposal you speak of in 2004 or just recently since this has 
gotten more public attention? 

Do you think domain kiting and domain tasting is a theory? 

Do you think that it is only a theory that registrars have engaged in this 
practice? 

Do you believe ICANN has addressed these issues in a timely fashion? 

Do you think the registrars and registries have acted to police their own 
industry in regards to these issues in a timely fashion?

I'm really curious as to your answers to those questions. It may be a matter of 
perception. If you perceive that ICANN and the registrars and registries have 
acted in a timely fashion then your idea of timely is much different than it is 
for many of us. Had those actions in your proposal been suggested when this was 
first brought to everyone's attention, then they woiuld definitely have been 
taken more seriously and more drastic action might not have been called for.

Chris McElroy







----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Elisabeth Porteneuve" 
<elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:29 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal registration activity, 
was: Re: [ga] List Rules


> 
> I feel an obligation to respond, since my comments are quoted here.  
> 
> There are a lot of conclusory statements made in the e-mails calling for
> the abolishment of the AGP. Yet, there is little evidence behind those
> conclusions.
> 
> I will be the first to state the process followed in getting this motion
> together has been less than stellar....IN short, there were lots of
> flaws.  I have pointed this out on a number of occasions.  That said,
> evidence was presented by the Registrars on how the AGP was used for
> legitimate purposes.  As a registry, I have personally seen how the AGP
> has been used in cases where a reseller or registrant has attempted to
> defraud a registrar.  Just because you may not have personally
> benefitted from the AGP, does not mean that other registrants have not.
> Neither the registries nor the registrars will support the abolishment
> of the AGP because of these legitimate purposes.  Let me also state for
> the record, there is no financial or other benefits NeuStar will receive
> by keeping an AGP.  In fact, one might argue that eliminating the AGP
> will result in NeuStar getting more money because no refunds will ever
> be issued.  However, we do see the benefits of the AGP if used properly
> and therefore, despite the possibility of making more money, we do
> support keeping a limited AGP (as you saw in our proposal).  
> 
> What I have not seen from anyone in support of eliminating the AGP is
> evidence as to (i) why the proposed motion will not solve the abuses of
> the AGP, and (ii) more importantly, if the solution does solve these
> abuses of the AGP, as NeuStar believes, why is eliminating the AGP
> necessary.  The fact that your gut tells you there could in theory be
> issues or that you general distrust registries, registrars and ICANN is
> NOT a basis to call for the abolishment of the AGP, where legitimate
> uses have been demonstrated.
> 
> If you believe I am wrong, please provide EVIDENCE....not gut feelings,
> disbelief, conjectures, distrust and conspiracy theories.  I really do
> want to see this evidence.  
> 
> Like Roberto said earlier (or something like this), why do you need a
> bazooka to kill a mosquito.
> 
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
> Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & 
> 
> Business Development 
> 
> NeuStar, Inc. 
> e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Jeffrey A. Williams
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 10:37 AM
> To: Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dstansell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> aheineman@xxxxxxxxxxxx; greg.abbott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> board-review-tor@xxxxxxxxx; jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx; twomey@xxxxxxxxx;
> public.information@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal registration activity,
> was: Re: [ga] List Rules
> 
> 
> Elisabeth and all,
> 
>  Thank you for your thoughtful and somewhat detailed
> response.  Very much welcomed by me anyway, and I hope 
> by others of the GA members.  Perhaps you would be
> so kind as to forward this, your response to the ALAC as
> well.  I am sure it would be of interest to some on
> that forum as well.  I shall be sure to forward mine
> in response!  >:)
> 
>  The remainder of my remarks, thoughts, concerns in 
> response will be interspersed below elisabeths and
> are intended to be very general and applied to the
> GA members as a whole or other perhaps interested
> parties and addressed to/cc.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Sent: Apr 1, 2008 6:45 AM
>>To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, 'Danny Younger'
> <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, 'Hugh Dierker' <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>,
> debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Cc: Elisabeth Porteneuve <elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules
>>
>>
>>I went through PPT presentations attached to the quoted message (via
> Danny) 
>>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05626.html, 
>>re-read Jeff Neuman's quotes from New Delhi (via Dominik) 
>>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01071.html ,
> Ross 
>>Rader's note 
>>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01300.html ,
> but 
>>also browsed contractual reports ICANN receives from registries at 
>>http://www.icann.org/tlds/monthly-reports/ , especially com-net ones.
> 
> I did a quick review of this report and found it very interesting.
> I would like to ask if it could be acceuented on the GNSO web
> site more promonantly for others whom have recently ask, to review.
>>
>>
>>
>>At the end of my reading, I think I understand better.
>>
>>First of all, I understand the AGP serves the large spectra of non
> written 
>>purposes, for the benefit of registrars and their resellers. My blunt 
>>perception from PPTs is that a number of registrars run insecure
> software, 
>>and let their uneducated resellers to do as much mess as possible - all
> that 
>>is on the dark side of the moon, because outside of ICANN's contracts,
> AGP 
>>is a kind of insurance to fix unspoken disasters.
> 
>  Your first sentance here really get's to the central aspect of the
> AGP's existance and or need/lack there of.  Non written purposes
> for the existance of the AGP has a "Gaming" aspect that seems to
> be central to the problem of Tasting, warehousing, kiting, and
> other related errant registration activity.  As such, the only 
> method or means by which those aspects of the AGP can be addressed 
> is to either document what does and does not constitute the AGP's use
> for those now unwritten benifits to registrants, or the elimination
> of the AGP, which I Chris, and Dominik proposals/motions outline
> and call for, becomes necessary.  Chris and myself have doubts as
> to wheather of not such specifics in modification of the AGP to
> provide for the desired flexability or the now non written benifits
> can be adaquately accomplished, and I personally am of the opinion
> the policing of same would be a huge burden of responsibility on
> the ICANN staff that is obviously desired to be eliminated.  Some
> of those oversite functions I know can be automated programatically
> in the registration software, but given that less than secure
> registration software in used a additional security level requirement
> would than also become necessary.  I have frequently suggested such
> be done long ago, but was sarimoniously ignored.  Now that chicken
> has come home to roost!
>>
>>Secondly, VeriSign's reports clearly indicate that some registrars -
> very 
>>few - delete N (big N)  times more domains than add or renew, and that
> is a 
>>permanent situation. VeriSign's benefit is that their servers'
> performances 
>>are permanently benched and able to withstand a lot.
> 
> Yes but Verisign in not necessarly respectively comparative to
> other registries as far as server performance ability is concerned,
> and does not apply to registrars at all.
>>
>>Third, I do not see much AGP benefit to registrants, they do not have
> EPP 
>>access to anything, and IMHO cannot make many mistakes (typo happens,
> of 
>>course).
> 
>  I fully agree.  What is and has for years now been necessary is
> that registrants have EPP access to their own registered domain name
> records at both the registrar level and registry level so as to
> keep them accurate and up to date.  Both registries and registrars
> have been particularly resistant to providing for this function,
> and as such errors in both registry/registrar data for any particular
> Domain name information remain, AND Whois listing data.  This poses at
> least one, and I would be glad to argue at any time in any setting,
> several other significant legal and criminal activity directly related
> to this lack of ability and oversite of domain name registration
> data.  As such, ICANN by way of the RAA contracts is liable to a
> limited degree in complicity of such illegal activity accordingly.
> 
>  However anyone of reasonable sensibilities can understand a
> typo error, but as Chris has pointed out those should not occur
> after the second opt-out has been sent to the registrant and
> recieved accordingly.
>>
>>
>>
>>Eventually I concur with proposed GNSO (Council?) motion - 50 deletes
> or 
>>10% - to discriminate between occasional mistakes or incompetence of
> the 
>>dark side and permanent tasting by some registrars.
> 
>  Plain and simple, registrars that have shown a short history
> of Tasting or other errent and possibly illegal activity should
> immediately have their ICANN accreditation revoked and their
> Domain Name taken down.
>>
>>Last, I think ICANN's should compile tendencies of monthly reports to
> show 
>>to the Board any new piggyback services happening in registrations.
> 
>  I fully agree.  Additionally if such activity is recognized, the
> offender should be immediately notified and given no longer than
> 10 calender days to correct the problem or face whatever legal
> consequences that may and should insue.
> 
> My final and personal concerns regarding Tasting and registration
> of Domain Names:
> 
>  As I have repeatedly stated for a number of years, along with
> Dr. Joe Baptista, my single biggest concern regarding the Domain
> name registration is similar to the assingment of IP addresses,
> that being that many, too many Domain Names that are registered
> are used for illegal activities, such as spam, phishing, and
> more importantly Child Ponrnography solicitiation or direct
> Child Ponography activity.  This must be STOPPED and ICANN
> can and has the direct ability to STOP it if it so chooses.
> Currently it does not choose to do so, or is unable to do
> so due to lack of staff and technical ability.  Those are
> not reasonable excuses IMHO!  Yet the user, just like myself,
> cannot by themselves stop this errant or illegal activity.
> But we can, and I persoanally do, just like Dr. Joe, Chris,
> and Dominik have, object strongly to this lack of responsibility
> by ICANN!
> 
>  As a matter of practicality and legal liability, passing
> along to LEA's, court systems in any and all countries,
> judicial systems of same due to a lack of responsibility
> by the ICANN Bod and legal staff is an unecessary burden
> upon those LEA's, judicial systems, court systems and an
> affront to the public that I am sure they do not appriciate
> at all.  Nor do I! >:(
>>
>>
>>
>>My 2 euro-cents
>>
>>Elisabeth Porteneuve
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
>>To: "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>; "'Hugh Dierker'" 
>><hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>; <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:04 PM
>>Subject: RE: [ga] List Rules
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, Danny, that could be really helpful in trying to sort this
> issue
>>> out. At least for me.
>>> RG
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
>>>> Sent: Monday, 31 March 2008 21:49
>>>> To: Hugh Dierker; debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello Eric,
>>>>
>>>> As much as I like motions, we would in a better position if
>>>> we could draft an issues paper laying out the pros and cons
>>>> of the AGP.  I note that the registrars have already created
>>>> a powerpoint on the benefits of the AGP -- you can view it by
>>>> clicking on the attachment at this url:
>>>>
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05626.html
>>>>
>>>> By this way, this powerpoint was quite convincing (at least
>>>> to Board director Steven Goldstein that referenced this
>>>> presentation at the Washington JPA session), so our
>>>> counterpoint arguments must necessarily be of equal or
>>>> greater caliber if we are to convince both the GNSO and the
>>>> Board over the objections of the registrars.
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> Danny
>>>>
>>>> --- Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > The list has run along very smoothly for several months. The main
>>>> > reason is voluntary compliance with the rules. Once this concept
>>>> > breaks down so does the list. We are not talking about
>>>> individual one
>>>> > time lapses. For constant repeat violations we must stand
>>>> strong and
>>>> > enforce the rules.
>>>> >
>>>> >   We are at a point for the first time in months, that the list is
>>>> > coalescing into the form of producing a statement/motion. The AGP
>>>> > issue seems to have come to a head and more formal resolution
>>>> > procedures may be appropriate. I believe it is at a motion
>>>> stage with
>>>> > 4 seconds. If the desire is to move forward in a constructive
>>>> > effective matter, we should hear that from the members.
>>>> >
>>>> >   Eric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> Regards,
> 
> 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
> My Phone: 214-244-4827
>