ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [registrars] Call for action - GNSO motion on Domain Tasting



more undue revenue to registries? at least if it goes to ICANN it can defray the fee that registrants pay.

On Apr 10, 2008, at 4:13 AM, Marcus Faure wrote:



Hi,

I still do not understand - and have not found anyone who could explain
to me - why in the 0.2$ model ICANN would receive the 0.2$
completely. Shouldn't there rather be a split between ICANN and the
registry based on the same proportion between registry price and ICANN
fee that is in place now?

Marcus



Hi all,

* I am not sure how many Registrars are aware of this but as it stands, it seems the Registry constituency is now voting in favor of the GNSO motion to solve the domain tasting problem by imposing the full $7 fee on each deleted
domain barring a 10% minimum (Please check
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dt-wg/msg00532.html)

* As has been discussed amongst the registrars, and in the last meeting acknowledged by some of the registries, as well as, more specifically some of the board members, this is far from an ideal solution. While a set of
Registrars seem to be using the AGP for tasting, the AGP has several
legitimate uses that Mason and Joathan effectively communicated in their presentations. While it maybe argued that the proposal has a 10% threshold, there was reasonable consensus that this threshold is quite low and poses considerable risks to registrars (risks such as fraud, or API abuse etc)

* Given that the Board has already approved a 20 cent ICANN fee to curb Domain Tasting, and only the implementation thereof remains pending, it does not make sense for additional overlapping solutions especially ones that are
onerous and out of the bounds of the scope of the problem itself

* If the Registry Constituency ends up passing this motion then we will have so many mixed overlapping proposals for the same problem - an ICANN board proposal, the GNSO proposal, and the individual Registry Funnel requests
which have also been approved

* I believe our reps should discuss this further with the Registry
Constituency as well as the GNSO

* I would like some more insight from our council members as to what our
action plan should be / is

* I wonder if there is any sense of the direction of the Board on this one, given that they have already adopted a view with their affirmation of their
own proposal

* I also believe that we should present a strong and compelling position
from our side that clearly explains that the proposed GNSO motion is
overstepping its intentions considerably, and is impacting areas beyond the
scope of the problem


Warm Regards
Bhavin Turakhia
Founder, Chairman & CEO
Directi
-------------------------
http://www.directi.com
Blog: http://bhavin.directi.com
T: +91-22-66797600
M (US): +1 (415) 366 7762
M (IN): +91 9820097557
F: +91-22-66797510
-------------------------




--
Global Village GmbH  Tel +49 2855 9651 0     GF Marcus Faure
Mehrumer Str. 16 Fax +49 2855 9651 110 Amtsgericht Duisburg HRB9987
D46562 Voerde        eMail info@xxxxxxxxxxx  Ust-Id DE180295363




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>