RE: [registrars] WG: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion

["Seth Jacoby" <seth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We should start to think of some more creative solutions than this.
We're the most innovative and entrepreneurial entity within the ICANN
process, though we're starting to act like that creepy Opus Dei guy in
The Da Vinci Code, punishing ourselves and our businesses.

Since much of the issues around tasting revolves around kiting, maybe we
should think about how we stop a name from churning in the AGP from one
registrar to another.  Maybe we kick in this model we're throwing around
only after a name has been deleted within the prior two-weeks. This
policy alone would drastically reduce the number of names which are
tasted.  Do we have any stats on that?

Also, what happens when all registries implement a policy not unlike PIR
and Neustar?  We're inviting double taxation.  This just seems like a
slippery slope to me.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Moshe Fogel
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 12:15 PM
To: Ross Rader; Rob Hall
Cc: Jeffrey Eckhaus; Thomas Keller; registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Adrian
Kinderis
Subject: Re: [registrars] WG: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team
Proposed GNSO Council Motion


Duration of AGP cant be as small as 10-12 , that will not leave time to 
detect a fraud and work against that.
I agree with Rob , that a small registrar can be harmed by an overnight
of 
100s - 1000s  if not more false registrations.  We have experiences
those in 
the past and still are.
Only last month we have lost about 5K for fraudulent .IL registrations
(.il 
does not have any AGP at all).   I can speak to that in more details in
the 
RC meeting.
So, better treshold should be made than only a 10% or 50 names.

Moshe Fogel
www.galcomm.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ross Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Rob Hall" <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Jeffrey Eckhaus" <jeckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Thomas Keller" 
<tom@xxxxxxxx>; <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Adrian Kinderis" 
<adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: [registrars] WG: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team
Proposed 
GNSO Council Motion


>
>
> On 8-Feb-08, at 11:34 AM, Rob Hall wrote:
>
>> So it needs to be a simple process that a Registrar can prove a
problem
>> and get forgiveness.
>
> I'm not sure that I agree with all of the examples that you've set
forth, 
> but nonetheless, I think this is a fair approach, so long as  the
absolute 
> limits are very low before we have to request forgiveness.
>
> The other alternative would simply be to change the duration of the
AGP 
> to something very small - like 10-12 hours.
>
> Ross Rader
> Director, Retail Services
> t. 416.538.5492
> c. 416.828.8783
> http://www.domaindirect.com
>
> "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
> - Erik Nupponen
>
>
>
>