RE: [ga] ...a palpable hit

[sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

> Hi, Sotiris!

Greetings Roberto!  I trust that you are well?

>
> Since you asked, here's my view.
> Domain name tasting is by and large a nuisance to internet users. And not
> only to domain name registrants, who might be deprived of broader choice
> of
> names (names are kept out of the market in the grace period
> registration/deletion game), but also to the plain net surfer who gets
> misled by search engines, landing on sites that were not the ones he/she
> was
> looking for. As time is money, I would argue that the loss of time by the
> user has an actual monetary value, and on top of that a lot of people pay
> their internet access by the time of connection.

Not to mention the fact that oftentimes such 'tasting' amounts to
'squatting', which makes the entire practice quite hypocritical and calls
into question the entire UDRP.  On one hand, registries/registrars are
bound to enforce intellectual property rights in domain names by locking
up so-called 'disputed' domains, while on the other, they are actively
seeking to hoard traffic generating domain names that have expired under
their interagency... it's actually quite despicable, wouldn't you agree?

> And yes, I agree with Karl, the actual raw cost for the registry is
> substantially lower than the cost charged to registrars.

What, if anything, do you recommend ought to be done about it?

> Anyway, my opinions were known, also because I participated to a public
> debate in Marrakesh on the subject, and I brought exactly these positions,
> that are incidentally the positions of the ALAC.

Roberto, I am curious, how many members of the "public" were present at
the debate in Marrakesh (and I don't mean the ICANN 'insiders' and
lobbyists... I mean actual members of the public at large)?

>
> However, I would take this chance to make another couple of related
> comments.
> First of all, personally, I would be inclined to get rid altogether of the
> deletion grace period: this was intended for allowing registrants who
> mistyped the name to revert the transaction, but (again personally) I have
> to observe that in the real world most often than not one pays for his/her
> own mistakes. However, do I remember correctly that the deletion grace
> period was introduced exactly following indication from the community that
> registrants/consumers should be protected? I remember even a discussion
> where the point was made that registrants not normally using ASCII were
> more
> error-prone than others, so we even had a cultural issue.

As far as I can recall, the primary reasoning for the grace period was to
allow registrants a 'second chance' if they happened to allow their
name(s) to expire for some reason or another.  From there we went on to
Redemption periods and as much as $80 charges to 'redeem' one's own domain
if you happened to allow it to expire... In short, it seemd the old adage
'give an inch and they'll take a yard' is an understatement when it comes
to the registrar community's abuse of the grace/redemption periods. 
Domain 'tasting' proves that there really is little/no cost to the
registrar for 'redeeming' a registrant's expired domain, so how do they
justify for example an $80 'redemption' fee?  Do you not agree that this
is a flagrant abuse of registrants?

> Secondly, I have to say that I did not appreciate at all the fact that one
> Director who engaged in dialogue on this list has been vehemently
> attacked.
> In my experience as Liaison, Veni is among the most available to dialogue
> and to listen to every point of view. Of course, he is entitled to have
> his
> own opinion, which may differ from the people arguing with him, but that
> does not mean he is not listening.

Frankly, Roberto, I did not appreciate the fact that a member of the GA
who engaged a Director in dialogue was patronized and insulted by the
Director (if you recall, a reference was made to Isaac Asimov...?)  Veni
may think he's being cute, but for those of us who were here long before
he appeared on the scene his prevarications and antics are downright
insulting.

>IMHO, it is a mistake for the GA to
> burn
> out the relationship with people like him: it only reduces further the
> chance to be listened.

Sigh. Roberto, you know very well that we (i.e. the original At Large
Membership and the public in general) have never really been listened to
by the Board... I have been a member of the ICANN community since its
inception, my name is on the list of registered attendees for the first
ICANN meeting in Boston in '98:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/cambridge-1198/attendees.html  I
chaired the WG-Review after Greg Burton's rascally submission and
subsequent disappearing act.  I was at ICANN Montreal in 2003 (where I had
the pleasure of making your acquaintance).  In all that time, I cannot
remember an instance when WE, the true At Large, have ever been listend
to.

Amiably,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
Macedonian