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

["Rob Hall" <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good point Bruce.  That certainly was not the intent, but you are quite
right, it could be a by-product.

What I am most concerned about is the one time unusual high levels a
registrar might see.  I think one could set the threshold low for
typical, routine transactions. But there should be a way to say,"Hey, I
have a unique case here and I need help".  

I know this may sound unwieldy, but I think we would all know one when
we see one.  So as painful as it sounds, there probably needs to be
manual over-ride process for the one time problems.  I would hate to see
a small Registrar go out of business because of a systems problem.

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: February-09-08 1:13 AM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] WG: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team
Proposed GNSO Council Motion


Hello Rob,


> I am concerned about percentages, as it allows registrars that are
> larger to offer services that the smaller ones can not.  For 
> example, a
> large registrar could offer tasting still, because of their size based
> on the percentage system.
> 
> So I prefer just a flat number that we are all allowed.  

Although that then benefits those with large portfolios of registrar
accreditations.
e.g if you have a 100 registrars and 1000 names per registrar - that
provides a tasting pool of 100,000 names.

Sounds like we are creating another thread game.

Alternatively you could just remove a threshold percentage but drop the
amount that needs to be paid during the first 5 days.  e.g 10 cents
instead of 20 cents for example.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin