<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] Call for action - GNSO motion on Domain Tasting
my guess is they will be very happy to say "yep. you were were right.
our claims were baseless. could you please make the cheque out
to.......".
and for the record they backed way off those claims when asked to
justify them.
On Apr 10, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Marcus Faure wrote:
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
>>>
|