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

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Karl wrote:
 
>> 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?
 
For my part it is about finding a balance between ending a scam and making
sure that all parties are relatively happy with the replacement system.
This means that the Registrars needs need to be taken into consideration
too... even if some people find this aspect distasteful.  The Registrars are
in business to make money.. yes.. but so are most of the people who purchase
individual domain names.  At the end of the day, whatever the purpose,
registrants and registrars need each other.
 
Best regards
 
Debbie
 


  _____  

From: Karl Peters - TLDA [mailto:tlda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 03 April 2008 18:25
To: Debbie Garside
Cc: GA
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] defining a problem...






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?

-Karl E. Peters










> 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)