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

[Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Moshe,

I agree we should take fraud into account.  Others have made 
insightful comments that a set number of registrations would allow 
companies with multiple registrars to taste.  I still feel the best 
solution is to have a reasonable threshold of no more than 5% and a 
method of forgiveness for unique cases.

BTW, I would like to express my appreciation to all the members and 
officers who are making the trip to Delhi to represent our collective 
interests.  Thanks!

Best Regards,

~Paul
:DomainIt


At 05:07 AM 2/9/2008, Moshe Fogel wrote:

>In this case , why not having a minimum treshold of let's say  1500 , but per a quarter , not per month. That way a registrar suffers from a wave of fraud attack, can use all the quarterly forgiveness, and an average of 500/month is definitely not sufficient for tasters even if they use a collection of 100 registrars.  A by quarter solution may also prevent the need for a manual process.
>
>My point is that any solution or treshold must take into account the needs of a relative small registrar who really suffers from those fraud "attacks" coming in waves every few months, (that is in addition to the ongoing fraudulent attempts etc..).
>
>Moshe Fogel
>www.galcomm.com
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Hall" <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 11:21 AM
>Subject: RE: [registrars] WG: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion
>
>
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>