Re: [ga] News from Sao Paulo
AGAIN, I SAW UPWARDS OF 1.8 NEW REGISTRATIONS THAT WERE ACTUALLY CREATED FROM THIS. I BELIEVE THERE WAS APPROXIMATELY 34 MILLION RAW DOMAINS ADDED THAT RESULTED IN THAT 1.8 MILLION. I WAS NOT ABLE TO, UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW, VERIFY THIS. I'M USING EXTERNAL TOOLS. Trying to validate domain tasting JOTHAN ? Comparing it to buying something at a store and returning it? Tim hit the nail on the head by saying AND WHAT WE FOUND WAS THAT, IN THAT SEVEN-MONTH PERIOD, 205 MILLION NEW DOMAIN NAMES WERE REGISTERED. OF THOSE 205 MILLION, 197 MILLION WERE DELETED. next guy ON OCTOBER 22ND ICANN APPROVED THE DOT ORG TASTE TESTING SERVICE. SO ON THE APPLICATION ITSELF, I WAS SURPRISED ICANN APPROVED IT. ON THE FACT THAT A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS IN THE APPLICATION, I THINK, WERE MEANT TO GET OTHER CONSTITUENCIES AND OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED. why would we be surprised at icann approving something without getting any input from users? SO A DOMAIN THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WORTH $4 THIS YEAR AND SOME WOULD SAY IT'S NOT WORTH KEEPING, WE ARE GOING TO THROW IT BACK, A WEEK FROM NOW MIGHT HAVE AN ADVERTISER THAT WANTS TO PUT HIS ADS ON IT THAT'S WILLING TO MAKE THAT DOMAIN WORTH 6 OR $8 THAT MAKES IT VIABLE FOR THE DOMAINER. THIS IS GOING TO GO ON AND ON AND REPEAT AND IT'S THE VALUE OF THE DOMAIN AND WHO IS ADVERTISING ON IT AND WHAT THE END-USER ADVERTISERS ARE WILLING TO PAY A GOOGLE OR YAHOO! OR OTHERS OUT THERE. While I have no problem at all with domainers buying and reselling domain names, we should not be forming policy based on what would be good for domainers. They do not represent a large portion of the Internet community. But because they do represent a large portion of domains registered and therefore more money for registrars, registries, and ICANN, policy is being created to satisfy their best customers. This has nothing to do with what is best for the average user on the Internet. Just catering to where the money is coming from is a business practice but not a policy ICANN should be facilitating. They are there to represent average users, not whoever pays them the most money. PHIL CORWIN said this right WHEN ICANN RECEIVES MORE THAN 1,000 COMMENTS ON A PROPOSAL AND WHEN MORE THAN 99% OF THOSE COMMENTS ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE ADOPTION OF THE AGREEMENTS AND WHEN THE RESULT OF THOSE COMMENTS ARE OF MODEST CHANGES, AT BEST, TO JUST A FEW OF THE POINTS RAISED BY COMMENTERS, WE DO NOT SEE ADEQUATE EVIDENCE OF A TRUE BOTTOM-UP CONSENSUS PROCESS, NOR DO WE SEE ADEQUATE EVIDENCE OF THE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY THAT ICANN COMMITTED ITSELF TO IN EXCHANGE FOR THE GREATER AUTONOMY IT RECEIVED UNDER ITS NEW MOU. AND WE INTEND TO BE WORKING CONSTRUCTIVELY TO GET A BETTER MATCH BETWEEN THE REALITY OF ICANN ACTIONS AND THE RHETORIC. PAUL STAHURA said SO I'M PROPOSING A NEW TYPE OF NAME, A CLASS II NAME. SO IT WOULD BE A NEW TYPE OF NAME SO THAT THERE WOULD BE TWO TYPES OF DOT COM NAMES, FOR EXAMPLE. THIS NEW TYPE OF NAME WOULD HAVE DIFFERENT PARAMETER SETTINGS THAT CAN GREATLY MITIGATE, MY BELIEF, MANY OF THE SIDE EFFECTS OF TASTING. AND SPECIFICALLY, THIS AVAILABILITY PARAMETER IS MOST IMPORTANT BECAUSE YOU COULD SEE IF A NAME IS BEING TASTED AND THEN IT'S AVAILABLE, THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY CONFUSION OF WHETHER IT BECOMES AVAILABLE, THEN UNAVAILABLE, THEN AVAILABLE AGAIN, LIKE THE ISSUES THAT TIM WAS TALKING ABOUT. which for the average user is even more confusing. do i want a type 1 or a type 2 dot com domain name? add that to all the other tlds that they will have to choose from if icann ever stops restraining trade and you add to the confusion by adding type 1 and type 2 to all of them? STEVE DELBIANCO said this right AND PHIL CORWIN, IN YOUR REMARKS, TALKED ABOUT YOUR MEMBERS OF THE INTERNET COMMERCE ASSOCIATION, THE ADVERTISERS, BEING THE ONES WHO ARE THE BOTTOM OF THE BOTTOM-UP CONSENSUS PROCESS. I THINK OTHERS IN THE PANEL HAVE DISAGREED BECAUSE THEY WENT TO SAY THAT THE REAL BOTTOM COULD INCLUDE THE REGISTRANTS AND THE ACTUAL USERS. Then Rob Hall says PHIL CORWIN: AND, STEVE, IF I COULD JUST RESPOND, PERHAPS THERE WAS SOME MISUNDERSTANDING, BUT I CERTAINLY DID NOT MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT THE ICA MEMBERS WERE THE SOLE BOTTOM AND THAT ALAC WAS NOT. Neither of those are the bottom in bottom-up consensus and that goes to the core of the problems that ICANN created by not developing a bottom-up consensus. Instead they just "redefined" the word bottom. It reminds me of the joke, "How many microsoft technicians does it take to change a light bulb? None. They just declare darkness the standard." One very large concern not addressed by anyone I have seen discussing this topic so far is the ruination of domain name values in general. Many tasters engage in other unsavory practices. While Paul Strahura may not agree, people engaged in phishing are no more likely to go ahead and pay for a domain name when they don't have to as anyone else. So "some" use it for phishing can be assumed. No matter what they say, some also use it for spamming or at the very least have the ability to do so and will. Now if they register a domain name and use it for spam or phishing or even for porn or anything else that google and other search engines consider "bad neighborhood" activity, then when they put the domain name back in the pool and someone else registers it in good faith they can incur penalties due to the taster's activities. That good faith registrant is now financially harmed by this practice. The grace period needs to be eliminated altogether for this and many other reasons. Most of the other solutions are being offered by people who are making money from domain tasting. Chris McElroy aka NameCritic http://www.articlecontentprovider.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx> To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 5:40 AM Subject: [ga] News from Sao Paulo I'm just reading the recorded discussion over the domain tasting held at the yesterday's meeting http://www.icann.org/meetings/saopaulo/captioning-dnmarket-06dec06.htm ...
|