<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] News from Sao Paulo
The issue of ruination of domain names is a serious issue. A user
registering a domain name does not expect to be registering one that already
is being penalized by the major search engines and the cost of resolving
that, of hiring an SEO expert and of the time it takes to resolve the issue
is substantial. If ICANN does not act on this, they are doing users a
disservice.
And if ICANN approves some watered down approach that legitimizes domain
tasting, then they need an agreement with google and the other search
engines not to penalize domain names that were held by a taster then
registered legitimately. They won't get that agreeement. The reason is that
the spammers and others will just drop and re-register the name under
different whois info and continue their bad practices. Therefore, again, the
only solution is to drop the AGP and eliminate tasting altogether.
The argument that people should be able to register a domain name to test
the traffic is ridiculous. These are mostly companies who can afford to pay
$6 for that test. The IP attorney argument about testing domains is equally
ridiculous. If the company can pay that lawyer $250 per hour they can pay
for a $6 domain name.
The idea it takes 5 days to realize you misspelled the domain name is even
more ridiculous. All they need to do is copy the microsoft principle. ARE
YOU SURE THIS IS THE DOMAIN NAME YOU WISH TO REGISTER? ARE YOU COMPLETELY
SURE YOU WISH TO REGISTER THIS DOMAIN NAME? HAVE YOU CHECKED THE SPELLING
AND IS IT CORRECT?
If after all those confirmations they still register the domain name, they
bought it. Simple as that. There is NO legitimate need for the AGP.
Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.articlecontentprovider.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "icann board address" <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>; "ALAC"
<committee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 1:25 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] News from Sao Paulo
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|