Re: [registrars] Motion for a Vote on Grace Period Deletion Fee

[JP <jp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jay,

It is obvious to me that in your attempt to make your point, you are
assuming and taking so many things for granted, that you are effectively
circulating a story, report, or statement without facts to confirm its truth
(a.k.a rumor).

In this case for example you casually accused a fellow registrar of
phishing.

What if the "registrar", or even an unrelated "hosting company" registered
the domains you mention as requested by the registrant, found out this
registrations were "suspect" (because they seemed destined to phishing),
proceeded to investigate further and found the registrations were
"fraudulent" (meaning they used stolen credit cards like most scammers do)
so then they proceeded to delete them.

I believe that since the proponents of this "fee" can not find an actual
"conflict" with this practice which must obviously be affecting some of
their practices, decided to attack it with fabrications, and by tying it to
every possible bad thing on the internet.


JP


> From: Jay Westerdal <jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 19:43:48 -0700
> To: <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion for a Vote on Grace Period Deletion Fee
> 
>>> One has to wonder when specious reasons are advanced in support of a
>>> proposition.  For example, someone mentioned phishing.  As someone who
> earns
>>> part of his living investigation and shutting down phishing attacks on
>>> behalf of a major bank, I just have to scratch my head and wonder at that
>>> one.  Phishing attacks typically involve using a bogus text label in an
> http
>>> anchor.  More often than not, the href field is either an IP address or a
>>> free webhosting site.  Looking at whois data for a domain registration as
>>> part of a phishing investigation is a waste of time - as if the data
> would
>>> be valid in any event.
> 
> John,
> There are registrars out there that register other people's marks for this
> 5 day fishing trip. Is it phishing? I am not sure it is phishing but it is
> fishy. The registrar I pulled this data from only registered these domains
> for 1 or 2 days. And yes, it set off alarms. Even if this registrar was only
> planning on fishing and not phishing with these doamins the corporations
> with
> the marks have to be on alert and ready for a real attack.
> 
> | GOOGLE-CNET.COM                          | 2005-05-30 |
> | YAHOOALOGINS.COM                         | 2005-06-01 |
> | BANKOFAMERICADEBTCONSOLIDATION.COM       | 2005-06-03 |
> | BANKOFAMERICAMERCHANTACCOUNT.COM         | 2005-06-03 |
> | VERISOONWIRELESS.COM                     | 2005-05-29 |
> | VERISIGNNSI.COM                          | 2005-05-28 |
> 
> This practice should not be free.
> 
> Jay Westerdal
> Name Intelligence, Inc.
> http://www.nameintelligence.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Berryhill [mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 8:20 PM
> To: Nevett, Jonathon; Jay Westerdal; registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion for a Vote on Grace Period Deletion Fee
> 
> 
>>  If ICANN starts assessing this fee on
>> all such names, we may see the Transaction Fee reduced from 25 cents
>> much sooner than Kurt mentioned on the budget call yesterday.
> 
> No.  You will simply see the volume of registration/deletes, along with the
> rate of residual registrations, go down.  No one who is going to test 1000
> names that *might* net a subset of names earning $100 in traffic revenue is
> going to pay $250 to do that.  Unfortunately, this fee, proposed by
> registrars on a system that is demonstrably profiting the registry, is not
> being proposed on the basis of any familiarity with the actual economics of
> what is going on.
> 
> One has to wonder when specious reasons are advanced in support of a
> proposition.  For example, someone mentioned phishing.  As someone who earns
> part of his living investigation and shutting down phishing attacks on
> behalf of a major bank, I just have to scratch my head and wonder at that
> one.  Phishing attacks typically involve using a bogus text label in an http
> anchor.  More often than not, the href field is either an IP address or a
> free webhosting site.  Looking at whois data for a domain registration as
> part of a phishing investigation is a waste of time - as if the data would
> be valid in any event.
> 
> Also, if churning the same names is actually happening, then surely someone
> has a list of observed names that have been the subject of this practice,
> and the name of the responsible registrar.  If not, and I'm perfectly
> willing to believe that someone might be doing this, then I have to believe
> that someone is making up facts.  Otherwise, imposing a fee on the basis of
> hypotheticals and rumors leads me to wonder what the "problem" really is.
> 
> It seems that the real reason for this motion has not been posted here.
> Real reasons are supported by actual facts and figures.
> 
>