ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re[2]: [ga] defining a problem...

  • To: Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re[2]: [ga] defining a problem...
  • From: Karl Peters - TLDA <tlda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:24:52 -0500
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head><title></title>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-15">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
<style type="text/css"><!--
body {
  margin: 5px 5px 5px 5px;
  background-color: #ffffff;
}
/* ========== Text Styles ========== */
hr { color: #000000}
body, table /* Normal text */
{
 font-size: 10pt;
 font-family: 'Arial';
 font-style: normal;
 font-weight: normal;
 color: #000000;
 text-decoration: none;
}
span.rvts1 /* Heading */
{
 font-weight: bold;
 color: #0000ff;
}
span.rvts2 /* Subheading */
{
 font-weight: bold;
 color: #000080;
}
span.rvts3 /* Keywords */
{
 font-style: italic;
 color: #800000;
}
a.rvts4, span.rvts4 /* Jump 1 */
{
 color: #008000;
 text-decoration: underline;
}
a.rvts5, span.rvts5 /* Jump 2 */
{
 color: #008000;
 text-decoration: underline;
}
/* ========== Para Styles ========== */
p,ul,ol /* Paragraph Style */
{
 text-align: left;
 text-indent: 0px;
 padding: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
 margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.rvps1 /* Centered */
{
 text-align: center;
}
--></style>
</head>
<body>

<p><br></p>
<p>At least, the below scenario would provide far fewer opportunities to use 
the same scam and leaves us to perhaps find a place to report such abuses for 
proper handling. What would ICANN do with such scammers? Is this all about 
registrars' rights and profitability, or is this a list for the general 
assembly to discuss end user rights and responsibilities? Why is all we talk 
about related to registrar profitability and not simple proper operation of the 
registration system for the end registrants?</p>
<p>-Karl E. Peters</p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p>&gt; Quite a good deterrent methinks!</p>
<p>&gt;&nbsp; </p>
<p>&gt; Debbie</p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p>&gt; From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff</p>
<p>&gt; Sent: 03 April 2008 15:31</p>
<p>&gt; To: Karl Peters - TLDA; GA</p>
<p>&gt; Subject: RE: [ga] defining a problem...</p>
<p>&gt; </p>
<p>&gt; </p>
<p>&gt; If you review the actual GNSO motion pending, the fees would be a lot 
higher than what you have indicated.&nbsp; If a registrar registered 500 names 
(as in your example), and returns 499 of them, the following would apply:</p>
<p>&gt; 1. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;If only 1 name were kept, the registrar 
would be allowed 50 deletes for the month.&nbsp; (The motion states the greater 
of 10% or 50 names) </p>
<p>&gt; 2. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;450 names would have to be paid for at 
full price. </p>
<p>&gt; 3. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Assuming $6.42 per name that means the 
registrar would have to pay $2889.00 (not $99.80). </p>
<p>&gt; 4. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Selling the name at $250 per name would 
mean: </p>
<p>&gt; $ 250.00 -</p>
<p>&gt; $ 2889.00</p>
<p>&gt; ____________</p>
<p>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; $ - 2639 (clear loss)</p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>

</body></html>
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>