RE: [registrars] Motion to adopt Tasting Position Statement

["John Berryhill" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>1) Two independent analyses of phishing and domain tasting data 
>showed no correlation between tasting and phishing.

Well, then they just aren't looking in the right places, and should consult
some people who know what they are talking about:

+++
Kristina Rosette, Intellectual Property Constituency:

http://www.icann.org/meetings/saopaulo/captioning-dnmarket-06dec06.htm

AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE TASTERS HAVE REALLY, TO A CERTAIN
EXTENT, STARTED TO SHIFT THE FOCUS IN TERMS OF DERIVING REVENUE FROM
ADVERTISING TO A CORE OF THEM, AND I DON'T MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT THIS IS TRUE
FOR ALL OF THEM, BUT THERE ARE SOME WHO ARE VIEWING THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR PHISHING

+++
Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse, Josh Bourne:

http://www.cadna.org/en/prepared-statement-july-24.html

Domain tasting and kiting are also used to facilitate phishing.  
+++

Perhaps it might be a good idea for your analysts to contact some of these
experts who are pretty sure about what is going on, because it is awfully
rude of you to say that the IPC and CADNA don't know what they are talking
about.

Why, if I believed you, then I'd have to believe the IPC, CADNA and others
are just making stuff up.

So you should think twice before you go around flinging insults at these
well known experts, by suggesting they are not being truthful, the way you
have done here.