RE: [ga] defining a problem...

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quite a good deterrent methinks!
 
Debbie


  _____  

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Neuman, Jeff
Sent: 03 April 2008 15:31
To: Karl Peters - TLDA; GA
Subject: RE: [ga] defining a problem...



If you review the actual GNSO motion pending, the fees would be a lot higher
than what you have indicated.  If a registrar registered 500 names (as in
your example), and returns 499 of them, the following would apply:

1.      If only 1 name were kept, the registrar would be allowed 50 deletes
for the month.  (The motion states the greater of 10% or 50 names) 

2.      450 names would have to be paid for at full price. 

3.      Assuming $6.42 per name that means the registrar would have to pay
$2889.00 (not $99.80). 

4.      Selling the name at $250 per name would mean: 

$ 250.00 -

$ 2889.00

____________

      $ - 2639 (clear loss)

 

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

Business Development 

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


  _____  


From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Karl Peters - TLDA
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 10:27 AM
To: GA
Subject: [ga] defining a problem...

 

All here,

       In all the effort to define and re-define the problems faced here, I
would like a qualified interpretation of what I experienced and described
some time back, as I believe it is an example of the most profitable and
least risky form of abuse of this policy that would be slowed, but certainly
not stopped through any recommendation I have seen here thus far.

 

       You may recall my initial input:

 

       I registered tldainc.org about a year ago and chose not to register
the .com for it because I really only need one address and those who want to
find us certainly can with a ,org. I did check once or twice during the year
and found that the .com had not been registered and thus no-one was trying
to confuse things with us. About a month ago, I got an e-mail suggesting
theu would help me out by selling me the "completing" tldainc.com for ONLY
$295. I checked and sure enough, it was indeed registered. I wrote back in
protest and now wish I had kept those messages as evidence. I heard nothing
more and one week later checked, out of curiosity, to find the .com was
available again. Someone, no matter what you want to call this program, was
making short term registrations and trying to make a fast dollar off of
unsuspecting potential registrants. (Having been around the internet for a
while, I trust very little I see!) Other than the currently discussed AGP,
what could allow this attempted fraud to exist? What could be done to
prosecute such people? 

       You may also remember that protiability was at a very low threshold,
even with a 20 cent fee to return the un-used (unsold) names. if someone
registered 500 names in this manner, sought to sell them for $295 and sold
only one of the 500 (let's say for a "discounted" $250) before returning the
other 499 at 20 cents each, their profit outlook would be as follows:  

               $250.00        Registration of one discounted SLD

               -$99.80                $.20 fee for each returned of 499 SLDs

__________________________

                 $150.20                Clear profit

 

       Tell me how that is not a good return for an unethical person abusing
the system! Tell me any other way they could do it without the AGP?

 

-Karl E. Peters