Re: [ga] A Question

["Prophet Partners Inc." <Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Karl,

The reason why you should use "taster" is because they represent a tiny
minority of the larger category called "speculators". Domain registrants
abusing the AGP are only a small number of domain speculators. Likewise,
"cybersquatters" are those with a pattern of intentionally registering and
using domains in ways that violate trademark rights. They also represent
only a small number of domain speculators. Broadly blaming all speculators
for AGP or cybersquatting is wrong and is the equivalent of branding all
married men as evil because there are a few men who beat their wives.

Speculators serve a legitimate purpose in all types of markets, including
but not limited to equities, debt instruments, commodity futures, currencies
and real estate. Simply put, speculators assume substantial market risk,
create market liquidity and add market stability; in exchange for an
opportunity to reap substantial financial rewards. Like many other
speculators in the domain field, we do not participate in AGP or
cybersquatting. We pay for our domains for the full registration term and
use them legitimately just like you, the other people participating in these
discussions and the vast majority of other domain registrants.

We're all for abolishing the AGP and instituting registry pricing policies
that are based on cost and performance.

Sincerely,
Ted
Prophet Partners Inc.
http://www.ProphetPartners.com
http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] A Question


> Dominik Filipp wrote:
>
> >>> I see it like your voice for eliminating AGP. After the elimination
> > all possible costs caused by this will be eliminated too.
> > Basically, no one except for the tasters makes profit out of it. Yes,
> > the tasters (registrars) are obligated to pay the registration fees to
> > the registry but after 5 days the fees are fully refunded back to the
> > registrar.
>
> It is not mechanised that way.  The speculator (why use the euphemism
> "taster" when the word "speculator" so much better describes the actor?)
> has on deposit with the registry an amount that's based on an estimate
> of a certain kind of activity.  But we need not get into that here.
>
> What I did want to say is that there are many costs leaked onto
> full-term domain name consumers -
>
> First is the basis registry fee that ICANN imposes without regard to
> cosgts.  For .com this is moving (or has moved?) to $7 with an
> escalator.  If speculators are being allowed to do registrations for a
> few cents, then there is no strong reason to believe that the full-term
> registry fee is anything more than 99% regulatory-granted (i.e.
> ICANN-granted) profit margin.
>
> Second, there is the expense for the infrastructure required to
> mechanize the huge transaction rate - the ratio of 5-day transactions to
> full term ones being 200:1.  ICANN requires full term customers to pay
> for this in two ways:  first via the registry fee and second by the fact
> that ICANN denies TLD applicants if they don't propose systems to handle
> this load, thus further restricting potential inter-TLD competition.
>
> I agree that all of the graces, except "redemption grace" should be
> obliterated.  Only "redemption grace" was brought before the board; the
> others were snuck past.
>
> --karl--