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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for your response.  Here is my response to you which corresponds
to your numbers..

 

1.      I never have endorsed the $.20 ICANN tax and it is not part of
the motion.
2.      Most tasting registrars have very few (comparatively) actual
registrations, so your number is quite misleading.  Maybe in the
aggregate there could in theory be that many, but your logic is faulty.
I have spoken to a number of the key tasters and according to them at
most 1% of the names tasted are actually registered.  Thus, for every
100 names tasted, only 1 is worth paying the registration fee on.  Put
another way, under the motion, that taster registrar would still have to
pay full price on 89% of the registrations (100- the 10% (threshold) -
the 1% the would have taken anyway).  Assuming 100 registrations and
$6.00 being the price per name (just to pick a round number which is
low), that would mean that for just 1 name that is worth the traffic,
the taster will essentially have to pay 89*6 (or $534).  No one name is
worth that amount.  Using the AGP to taste will just stop.  P.S., I am
not a mathematician so my numbers may be a little off, but the point
remains the same.
3.      Most phishing attacks to date are from actual registered names
that have been registered for longer than 5 days.  I wont go too deep
into it right now, but in order to launch a successful attack,
especially for the dissemination of bots and malware, a period of time
longer than 5 days is generally required.  That is not true in all
cases, but in the investigations I have been involved in, that is
generally the case.  So, I disagree with your assessment.
4.      Your statement that you have found no legitimate use for the AGP
is based on what?  Certainly not the presentations and other evidence
provided by GoDaddy and other reputable registrars who have shown they
use it for legitimate purposes.
5.      Majority of what public?  The GA list of which there are very
few members of the public participating?  The GNSO survey where most of
the respondents were IP attorneys responding after INTA sent out a mass
e-mailing "urging" its members to reply.  That "survey" as you call it
was not a survey at all, but rather a request for information.  I
know...I was one of the members of the group that crafted it.  If you
re-read what you call the "survey" it will tell you that it was not a
survey and was not intended to be quantified.

 

I have been reading the e-mails.  Perhaps I am one of the few who
have...and I am not even on the council.  Dominick, I appreciate this
dialogue, but unfortunately, the registries and registrars (the
overwhelming majority of whom do not profit from tasting despite claims
to the contrary) are not persuaded by those arguments.

 

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & 

Business Development 

NeuStar, Inc. 
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>  

________________________________

From: Dominik Filipp [mailto:dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 7:50 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; chris@xxxxxx; Elisabeth Porteneuve
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal registration
activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules

 

Jeff,

 

the problem is that both the current GNSO recommendations or motions are
still insufficient in addressing the effective solution of domain
tasting. You would appreciate some evidence? Ok, I'll provide you with
some.

 

The AGP is an extremely abusive concept even in smaller volume.

 

1. The first recommendation adopting the $0.20 fee for deletes seems to
be curbing the practice at first glance. But in fact tasters can easily
recover from the provision and even increase the number of domains being
tastet. Shocked? Read my a bit anecdotical but factual post explaining
and reasoning this modified practice sent to the GA with subject title
"How to Unleash Domain Tasting for $0.20?" Unfortunately, we are not
allowed to cross-link the posts so you will have to find it manually.

 

2. The second recommendation adopting 10% free AGP deletion cap proposed
still allows for more than 100,000 domains every single month to being
abused via domain tasting. Due to unclear and vague formulations in the
proposal that raises more questions than answers this number can be much
higher. How is that possible? How did I calculate the number? Read my
post with subject title "Current Drafted Motion - Another Sort of
Speculation?" sent to the GA.

 

3. Increased danger of domain tasting has also been clearly recognized
in terms of facilitating phishing practice. See recent comments posted
by PayPal and eBay on the domain-tasting comment list. Needless to say
that phishing can operate even on a small number of abused domains
trying to fool large Internet community and can be gaining remarkable
profit out of just few stolen credentials.

 

4. Large community of users is facing this colossal abuse being commited
on them on daily basis. That is why the AGP, which is the core of the
abuse, is being considered here to be eliminated in the first place. So
far, we have not found ANY legitimate reason for keeping the AGP,
especially when considering the pros and cons viewed from the
perspective of all stakeholders in the Internet community. See Chris's,
my and other's comments on this posted on the GA.

 

5. The majority of public voice has clearly and explicitly expressed its
desire to eliminate the AGP during the official GNSO survey. This voice
cannot be ignored and must be taken into account.

 

Please also read other mails posted on domain-tasting comment forum as
well as those related to the issue on the GA. All arguments and
reasoning mentioned there cannot be comprimed and incorporated into this
one mail.

 

Dominik

 

P.S. Sorry if I am not able to react in a timely fashion but I am
currently very busy during my business trip.

 

________________________________

Von: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx im Auftrag von Neuman, Jeff
Gesendet: Mi 02.04.2008 20:57
An: chris@xxxxxx; Jeffrey A. Williams; Elisabeth Porteneuve
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal registration
activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules

Chris,

 

I don't mean to harp on the definition of "kiting", but I feel like I
need to clear up a misconception.  Kiting does not really occur as often
as has been represented.  I am enclosing an e-mail I sent last year to
the domain tasting group about this issue in which Tim actually agreed
with me.  The reason I am doing this is because Kiting is a loaded term
that conjures up such negative emotions and it really doesn't occur that
much.  VeriSign has represented that they have similar stats.

 

To answer your other point, there are a number of solutions that would
do away with the problem, but that does not mean we should adopt those.
For example, we could do away with registrars, but I am not in any way
advocating that :-) .The point is that I believe you should take the
least restrictive means to solve a problem, rather than a solution that
will likely have other negative effects in addition to solving the
problem.  For example, when we were examining transfers years ago, the
transfer process was being abused.  We could have solved the problem by
stating that transfers would no longer be allowed.  That would have been
ridiculous, but it would have solved the problem.  After all, without a
transfer process, the process could not be abused.  I know that's an
absurd example, but you get my point.

 

I can't do anything about your mistrust of ICANN, but I can tell you
that some of us registries and registrars are trying to do the right
thing.  NeuStar and Afilias submitted proposals on our own to address
the problem in a manner which we believe will (i) curb the abuses, (ii)
be easily implementable by registrars, and (iii) still allow for the
legitimate uses of the AGP.  There is nothing financial in this for us
-- just extra costs in implementation and perhaps the knowledge for
doing what we believe is right.  It may not be your perfect solution,
but if it works, then why not try it.


I need to get back to paid work as well.


Thanks.

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & 

Business Development 

NeuStar, Inc. 
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>  

________________________________

From: chris@xxxxxx [mailto:chris@xxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 1:52 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Jeffrey A. Williams; Elisabeth Porteneuve
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal registration
activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules

 

Thank you Jeff. FYI, I would really like this to be resolved. I am not
just against registrars, registries, and ICANN. I am simply going by
ICANN's past history and performance when it comes to these type of
issues when referring to it. If there is mistrust, there is good reason.

 

Actaully what Bob is referring to IS kiting and not tasting. Tasting is
when anyone uses the AGP to try out a domain name. Kiting happens when
they work with others so that person number 2 picks it right back up for
another 5 days, person 3 does the same, and so on and so on. That domain
name is not off the market for 5 days. It is off the market for an
indeterminate amount of time depending on the size of their network.

 

Tim is a good guy and I respect his opinion as I do yours Jeff. However,
I have to wonder if he is choosing this because it is at least a good
start or if he actually believes this will solve the problem.

 

The evidence you ask for cannot exist and I assume that is a rhetorical
question. It's like going into a lab and finding an unlimited button and
someone says I wonder what this does. We cannot know until you push the
button. 

 

However I do know that if the AGP did not exist, it would solve the
problem. That is fact. Indisputable. So choosing that solution will
definitely solve the problem and the other method "might" solve the
problem or at least we do not have proof that it won't solve the
problem, so you would rather choose the "might" method. I would rather
choose the definite method.

 

You do agree that we can "prove" that the elimination of the AGP will
stop the abuse of same right?

 

And Jeff, I do appreciate the dialogue. We may disagree, but I do not
mean any of it as a personal attack on anyone. I have to work for
clients who want better domain names and many of those are not available
due to tasting and kiting being allowed for this long.

 

Chris McElroy 

        ----- Original Message ----- 

        From: Neuman, Jeff <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>  

        To: chris@xxxxxx ; Jeffrey A. Williams
<mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  ; Elisabeth Porteneuve
<mailto:elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  

        Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

        Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 1:06 PM

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

         

        Thank you for this.

         

        FYI, Tim Ruiz, who is in senior management at GoDaddy was on the
drafting committee and supports the motion.  The motion proposes to end
the types of abuses Bob is talking about.  However, I will note for the
record that what Bob calls kiting is not actually kiting, but rather
tasting.  Big difference.

         

        My question still remains.  If the motion goes through and is
implemented, what evidence is there that this will not stop the AGP
abuses?

         

        With respect to your questions:
        
        1.  There has been very little tasting going on in .biz or .us.
Any tasting that has occurred did not start until last year.  So no, I
was not part of anything related to this prior to when the issues were
brought forward by the ALAC in their draft issues report.

         

        2.      It is my belief that all known abuses to the AGP will be
eliminated by the proposal.   Will tasting be eliminated?  Tougher
question, but the answer is the same whether this motion is adopted or
the AGP is eliminated.  In other words, eliminating the AGP will not
sole any more problems in my view that the current version.  It will
create additional problems with respect to legitimate deletes. 
        3.      Registrars have abused the AGP, however, the motion
should cure the known abuses. 
        4.      And no, I do not believe personally that the response to
the abuses has been as quick as it should have been either from ICANN or
by the Registrars.  That said, I believe NeuStar's implementation will
solve the known issues with the AGP. 

         

        Also, I believe you asked whether I believe registrars just made
up reasons for legitimately using the AGP to benefit from tasting or
something like that.  The answer is no.  Most of the reasons for keeping
the AGP were submitted by companies like GoDaddy and others that do not
engage in tasting or have ever abused the AGP.

         

        Sorry if I missed some questions, but I hope I got most of them.
If I did not, feel free to ask again.  (Although maybe we can start a
new chain...this one got long and hard to follow).

         

        Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
        Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & 

        Business Development 

        NeuStar, Inc. 
        e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>  

        
________________________________


        From: chris@xxxxxx [mailto:chris@xxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:50 PM
        To: Neuman, Jeff; Jeffrey A. Williams; Elisabeth Porteneuve
        Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal
registration activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules

         

        Here is a letter written to ICANN in 2004 from Bob Parsons.
http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/pdf/100804_letter_iyd.pdf
<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 <http://www.directnic.com/>  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 <http://www.icann.org/>  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
<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> >

        To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >; "Elisabeth Porteneuve"
<elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >

        Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>

        > 
        > 
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto:ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ;
dstansell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dstansell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ;
        > aheineman@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aheineman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> ;
greg.abbott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:greg.abbott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ;
        > board-review-tor@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:board-review-tor@xxxxxxxxx>
; jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx> ; twomey@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:twomey@xxxxxxxxx> ;
        > public.information@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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
<mailto:elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
        >>Sent: Apr 1, 2008 6:45 AM
        >>To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:roberto@xxxxxxxxx> >, 'Danny Younger'
        > <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> >,
'Hugh Dierker' <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
>,
        > debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ,
ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
        >>Cc: Elisabeth Porteneuve <elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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
<mailto:roberto@xxxxxxxxx> >
        >>To: "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> >; "'Hugh Dierker'" 
        >><hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> >;
<debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >;
        > <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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> 
        >>>> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
        >>>> Sent: Monday, 31 March 2008 21:49
        >>>> To: Hugh Dierker; debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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
<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
<mailto: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 <mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
        > My Phone: 214-244-4827
        >