RE: [registrars] Re: Ballot to determine whether ICANN Registrars favor or oppose Domain Tasting.

[Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John,

I certainly hope not.  I just voted for what I hoped was against free, 
bulk, domain tasting but in no way would I want that to imply that I'm 
against the AGP.

I agree with your comments about Verisign.  They could provide AGP at 
no charge for a percentage of total registrations for any given 
registrar (for testing, fraud and errors), and anything above that 
would be charged a reduced fee.  Then, what registrars do with AGP 
after that is up to each of them, but at least it'd be a legitimate 
and paid service.  Is that exactly how PIR is handling it?  I'm 
surprised Verisign isn't stepping in to push for this because it would 
add to their bottom line while reducing overhead.

~Paul

At 05:42 PM 1/18/2008, John Berryhill wrote:


>> I prefer the term used by Chuck Gomes when he first told us 
>>of the practice.  
>
>Chuck Gomes also followed up on the Mar Del Plata discussion, and expressed
>a strong preference that others not try to simplify his extended comments.
>
>David Maher also opined on the issue of abuse, and PIR implemented a policy
>that ended what they considered to be an abusive practice - promptly and
>without complaint.  Verisign can do the same thing if so motivated.
>
>>  AGP is just a euphemism for that Abuse.  
>
>To clarify - is "Against Domain Tasting" synonymous with "Against the AGP",
>then?