Re: [ga] News from Sao Paulo

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris and all,

  Yes, we have a ICANN version of "Jim Crow" in the form
of contracts and Policies.

kidsearch wrote:

> 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
> > ...
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obediance of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827