ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


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

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

  • To: elliot noss <enoss@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [registrars] Call for action - GNSO motion on Domain Tasting
  • From: "Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:02:44 +0200 (CEST)
  • Cc: Registrar Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <34F6CED7-4EBC-431F-AACA-0A438C99EE21@tucows.com> from elliot noss at "Apr 10, 2008 06:43:38 am"
  • List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


While we may think that the registry income is undue, I do not see the
justification to have the funds go to ICANN. And BTW the grace period
abuse was the registries' major argument to introduce the annual raise
of the per-domain fee. When there is a financial balance for it,
the argument goes away. While I do not believe that this will cause
the stability of domain pricing, it will make it even more obvious
that the registries' justification for price increases is pointless.

> 
> 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
> 


-- 
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 >>>