Mailing Lists
[ALAC] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Posted August 12th, 2009 by Mailing list user
Please see the announcement and report
(http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12aug09-en.htm)
ICANN posted today about the impact of the AGP Budget Provision and
the AGP Limits Policy on Domain Tasting.
In short, the changes are dramatic. There were 17,668750 AGP deletes
in June 2008. Following the ICANN budget levy on excessive deletes,
the number decreased to 2,785,605. With the implementation of the AGP
limit policy in April 2009, the total number of AGP deletes was
58,218, an overall decrease of 99.7%.
Put another way, in June 2008, for .COM, there were 2,122,794 net new
domains added, and an additional 15,738,292 domain names added and
then AGP-deleted for an AGP delete rate of 741%
In April 2009, there were 2,084,868 net new domains added, and an
additional 37,519 domain names added and then AGP-deleted for an AGP
delete rate of under 2%.
Under the policy, an AGP-delete rate of 10% is allowed without
financial penalty, per registrar, to allow for exceptional
conditions. It was expected that few registrars would exceed this 10%
and in fact in April only 22 registrars exceeded 10%, and there were
only 432 excessive AGP-deletes.
As the organization that started this entire policy process, At-Large
and ALAC can be proud of the results.
Alan
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Indeed the old numbers were indecent! The impact on security was huge as I
remember a closed presentation of VeriSign to the board in 2007.
Vanda Scartezini
POLO Consultores Associados
& IT Trend
Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8
01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.
Fone + 55 11 3266.6253
Mob + 5511 8181.1464
-----Original Message-----
From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan
Greenberg
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 5:21 PM
To: ALAC Working List; At-Large Worldwide
Subject: [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Please see the announcement and report
(http://w
ww.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12aug09-en.htm)
ICANN posted today about the impact of the AGP Budget Provision and
the AGP Limits Policy on Domain Tasting.
In short, the changes are dramatic. There were 17,668750 AGP deletes
in June 2008. Following the ICANN budget levy on excessive deletes,
the number decreased to 2,785,605. With the implementation of the AGP
limit policy in April 2009, the total number of AGP deletes was
58,218, an overall decrease of 99.7%.
Put another way, in June 2008, for .COM, there were 2,122,794 net new
domains added, and an additional 15,738,292 domain names added and
then AGP-deleted for an AGP delete rate of 741%
In April 2009, there were 2,084,868 net new domains added, and an
additional 37,519 domain names added and then AGP-deleted for an AGP
delete rate of under 2%.
Under the policy, an AGP-delete rate of 10% is allowed without
financial penalty, per registrar, to allow for exceptional
conditions. It was expected that few registrars would exceed this 10%
and in fact in April only 22 registrars exceeded 10%, and there were
only 432 excessive AGP-deletes.
As the organization that started this entire policy process, At-Large
and ALAC can be proud of the results.
Alan
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[ALAC] [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Indeed the old numbers were indecent! The impact on security was huge as I
remember a closed presentation of VeriSign to the board in 2007.
Vanda Scartezini
POLO Consultores Associados
& IT Trend
Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8
01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP.
Fone + 55 11 3266.6253
Mob + 5511 8181.1464
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
The report gives credit to the GNSO for developing the policy, which
is correct as the GNSO voted to initiate a policy development
process, formed a working group (with At-Large participation), and
ultimately approved the resultant policy and recommended that the
Board support it. All of that was driven off of an Issues Report
investigating Domain tasting and that Issues Report was created at
the request of the ALAC. Domain tasting was an issue that had been
discussed for quite some time within ICANN, but the ALAC was the
group that forced the question and started to formal process to
address Domain Tasting.
But once that process was initiated by the ALAC, there was a lot of
work, both official and unofficial done by a lot of parties to create
the end result. And is should be noted that despite the negative
comments raised in this thread about registries, several registries
played a large and crucial role in creating the end result.
Alan
At 12/08/2009 07:01 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>As a matter of fact the document thanks GNSO, not ALAC
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Alan Greenberg"
>To: "ALAC Working List" , "At-Large
>Worldwide"
>Sent: Thursday, 13 August, 2009 8:21:22 AM GMT +12:00 Fiji
>Subject: [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
>
>Please see the announcement and report
>(http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12aug09-en.htm)
>
>ICANN posted today about the impact of the AGP Budget Provision and
>the AGP Limits Policy on Domain Tasting.
>
>
>As the organization that started this entire policy process, At-Large
>and ALAC can be proud of the results.
>
>Alan
>
>_______________________________________________
>At-Large mailing list
>At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[ALAC] [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
The report gives credit to the GNSO for developing the policy, which
is correct as the GNSO voted to initiate a policy development
process, formed a working group (with At-Large participation), and
ultimately approved the resultant policy and recommended that the
Board support it. All of that was driven off of an Issues Report
investigating Domain tasting and that Issues Report was created at
the request of the ALAC. Domain tasting was an issue that had been
discussed for quite some time within ICANN, but the ALAC was the
group that forced the question and started to formal process to
address Domain Tasting.
But once that process was initiated by the ALAC, there was a lot of
work, both official and unofficial done by a lot of parties to create
the end result. And is should be noted that despite the negative
comments raised in this thread about registries, several registries
played a large and crucial role in creating the end result.
Alan
At 12/08/2009 07:01 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>As a matter of fact the document thanks GNSO, not ALAC
>
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
As a matter of fact the document thanks GNSO, not ALAC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Greenberg"
To: "ALAC Working List" , "At-Large Worldwide"
Sent: Thursday, 13 August, 2009 8:21:22 AM GMT +12:00 Fiji
Subject: [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Please see the announcement and report
(http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12aug09-en.htm)
ICANN posted today about the impact of the AGP Budget Provision and
the AGP Limits Policy on Domain Tasting.
As the organization that started this entire policy process, At-Large
and ALAC can be proud of the results.
Alan
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
On 08/12/2009 01:21 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> As the organization that started this entire policy process, At-Large
> and ALAC can be proud of the results.
I'm not so sure about that.
The main problem with the massive add-grace stuff was not the churn but
the fact that it was a transfer of costs from the "domainers", who were
getting a free ride, onto the backs of the domain name buying public who
were paying for the transaction costs and the lost opportunity costs due
to the 5 day name lock-up.
When you or I acquire a .com name for a year we each have to pay a
registry fee of about $7 to cover the purported costs that the registry
incurs in order to handle our transaction and publish the name into the
zone and operate the zone servers. We pay that fee even if we
relinquish the name in a week.
That would suggest that in June 2008, where there were 15,738,292 AGP
names, that the .com registry was bearing a cost (at that pegged $7
registry fee) of $110,168,044/month - or about $1,322,016,528/year.
There are two conclusions:
Either the .com registry has now saved over 1.3 billion $US that we were
previously paying and which it is now retaining as profit.
Or the registry fee is pegged by ICANN at a hyper inflated level.
Either way, we the community of internet users are a Boston fish - we
are scrod.
The point of this little exercise is to show that ICANN's fiat registry
fees, based on thing more than hot air emitted by the registries and
accompanied by no audit of actual registry costs, is costing domain name
users a very large pile of money every year.
It is long past time that ICANN be required to perform a believable,
public, and deep audit of registry costs and to adjust the registry fee
component of domain name prices to be in conformance with those costs.
--karl--
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Personally, I would not focus on the price as the main criterion for
evaluating the success of the elimination of domain tasting.
I think that the most important effect on consumers was the unavailability
of names, that were used instead for different purposes.
I agree with Alan, that ALAC can be proud of the fact that it demonstrated
that it can indeed play a significant role.
Incidentally, the ability of ALAC to play a significant role is one of the
considerations on the table in the debate that is going on right now about
having one or more Directors, elected by At-Large or ALAC, with voting
rights.
Cheers,
Roberto
Disclaimer: I know that Karl and myself have different views on the matter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf
> Of Karl Auerbach
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 August 2009 22:59
> To: At-Large Worldwide
> Cc: ALAC Working List
> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
>
> On 08/12/2009 01:21 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
> > As the organization that started this entire policy
> process, At-Large
> > and ALAC can be proud of the results.
>
> I'm not so sure about that.
>
> The main problem with the massive add-grace stuff was not the
> churn but the fact that it was a transfer of costs from the
> "domainers", who were getting a free ride, onto the backs of
> the domain name buying public who were paying for the
> transaction costs and the lost opportunity costs due to the 5
> day name lock-up.
>
> When you or I acquire a .com name for a year we each have to
> pay a registry fee of about $7 to cover the purported costs
> that the registry incurs in order to handle our transaction
> and publish the name into the zone and operate the zone
> servers. We pay that fee even if we relinquish the name in a week.
>
> That would suggest that in June 2008, where there were
> 15,738,292 AGP names, that the .com registry was bearing a
> cost (at that pegged $7 registry fee) of $110,168,044/month -
> or about $1,322,016,528/year.
>
> There are two conclusions:
>
> Either the .com registry has now saved over 1.3 billion $US
> that we were previously paying and which it is now retaining
> as profit.
>
> Or the registry fee is pegged by ICANN at a hyper inflated level.
>
> Either way, we the community of internet users are a Boston
> fish - we are scrod.
>
> The point of this little exercise is to show that ICANN's
> fiat registry fees, based on thing more than hot air emitted
> by the registries and accompanied by no audit of actual
> registry costs, is costing domain name users a very large
> pile of money every year.
>
> It is long past time that ICANN be required to perform a
> believable, public, and deep audit of registry costs and to
> adjust the registry fee component of domain name prices to be
> in conformance with those costs.
>
> --karl--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar
ge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[ALAC] [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Personally, I would not focus on the price as the main criterion for
evaluating the success of the elimination of domain tasting.
I think that the most important effect on consumers was the unavailability
of names, that were used instead for different purposes.
I agree with Alan, that ALAC can be proud of the fact that it demonstrated
that it can indeed play a significant role.
Incidentally, the ability of ALAC to play a significant role is one of the
considerations on the table in the debate that is going on right now about
having one or more Directors, elected by At-Large or ALAC, with voting
rights.
Cheers,
Roberto
Disclaimer: I know that Karl and myself have different views on the matter
[At-Large] [ALAC] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Thanks Roberto,
The discussion of Domain Tasting and the results I was announcing are
certainly an opportunity to raise the issues that Karl did, but they
were never a part of the discussion. The only monetary issue
discussed was that there was *some* cost of supporting the volume of
transactions caused by tasters, and this cost was born by the rest of
us. But there was never any suggestion that either the activity or
its removal would have a substantive impact on the registry fee.
The real point is that there was a perceived problem and a lot of
talk, ALAC decided to initiate some action instead of just talk, and
the ultimate result was elimination of the problem.
I am optimistic that our current GNSO-PDP on post-expiration domain
name recovery will be a similar success story, and I encourage people
to get involved in the PDP Working Group which has just started its
deliberations.
Alan
At 14/08/2009 03:33 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Personally, I would not focus on the price as the main criterion for
>evaluating the success of the elimination of domain tasting.
>I think that the most important effect on consumers was the
>unavailability of names, that were used instead for different purposes.
>I agree with Alan, that ALAC can be proud of the fact that it
>demonstrated that it can indeed play a significant role.
>Incidentally, the ability of ALAC to play a significant role is one
>of the considerations on the table in the debate that is going on
>right now about having one or more Directors, elected by At-Large or
>ALAC, with voting rights.
>Cheers,
>Roberto
>
>Disclaimer: I know that Karl and myself have different views on the matter
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf
> > Of Karl Auerbach
> > Sent: Wednesday, 12 August 2009 22:59
> > To: At-Large Worldwide
> > Cc: ALAC Working List
> > Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
> >
> > On 08/12/2009 01:21 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> >
> > > As the organization that started this entire policy
> > process, At-Large
> > > and ALAC can be proud of the results.
> >
> > I'm not so sure about that.
> >
> > The main problem with the massive add-grace stuff was not the
> > churn but the fact that it was a transfer of costs from the
> > "domainers", who were getting a free ride, onto the backs of
> > the domain name buying public who were paying for the
> > transaction costs and the lost opportunity costs due to the 5
> > day name lock-up.
> >
> > When you or I acquire a .com name for a year we each have to
> > pay a registry fee of about $7 to cover the purported costs
> > that the registry incurs in order to handle our transaction
> > and publish the name into the zone and operate the zone
> > servers. We pay that fee even if we relinquish the name in a week.
> >
> > That would suggest that in June 2008, where there were
> > 15,738,292 AGP names, that the .com registry was bearing a
> > cost (at that pegged $7 registry fee) of $110,168,044/month -
> > or about $1,322,016,528/year.
> >
> > There are two conclusions:
> >
> > Either the .com registry has now saved over 1.3 billion $US
> > that we were previously paying and which it is now retaining
> > as profit.
> >
> > Or the registry fee is pegged by ICANN at a hyper inflated level.
> >
> > Either way, we the community of internet users are a Boston
> > fish - we are scrod.
> >
> > The point of this little exercise is to show that ICANN's
> > fiat registry fees, based on thing more than hot air emitted
> > by the registries and accompanied by no audit of actual
> > registry costs, is costing domain name users a very large
> > pile of money every year.
> >
> > It is long past time that ICANN be required to perform a
> > believable, public, and deep audit of registry costs and to
> > adjust the registry fee component of domain name prices to be
> > in conformance with those costs.
> >
> > --karl--
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar
>ge-lists.icann.org
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[ALAC] [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Thanks Roberto,
The discussion of Domain Tasting and the results I was announcing are
certainly an opportunity to raise the issues that Karl did, but they
were never a part of the discussion. The only monetary issue
discussed was that there was *some* cost of supporting the volume of
transactions caused by tasters, and this cost was born by the rest of
us. But there was never any suggestion that either the activity or
its removal would have a substantive impact on the registry fee.
The real point is that there was a perceived problem and a lot of
talk, ALAC decided to initiate some action instead of just talk, and
the ultimate result was elimination of the problem.
I am optimistic that our current GNSO-PDP on post-expiration domain
name recovery will be a similar success story, and I encourage people
to get involved in the PDP Working Group which has just started its
deliberations.
Alan
At 14/08/2009 03:33 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Personally, I would not focus on the price as the main criterion for
>evaluating the success of the elimination of domain tasting.
>I think that the most important effect on consumers was the
>unavailability of names, that were used instead for different purposes.
>I agree with Alan, that ALAC can be proud of the fact that it
>demonstrated that it can indeed play a significant role.
>Incidentally, the ability of ALAC to play a significant role is one
>of the considerations on the table in the debate that is going on
>right now about having one or more Directors, elected by At-Large or
>ALAC, with voting rights.
>Cheers,
>Roberto
>
>Disclaimer: I know that Karl and myself have different views on the matter
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf
> > Of Karl Auerbach
> > Sent: Wednesday, 12 August 2009 22:59
> > To: At-Large Worldwide
> > Cc: ALAC Working List
> > Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
> >
> > On 08/12/2009 01:21 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> >
> > > As the organization that started this entire policy
> > process, At-Large
> > > and ALAC can be proud of the results.
> >
> > I'm not so sure about that.
> >
> > The main problem with the massive add-grace stuff was not the
> > churn but the fact that it was a transfer of costs from the
> > "domainers", who were getting a free ride, onto the backs of
> > the domain name buying public who were paying for the
> > transaction costs and the lost opportunity costs due to the 5
> > day name lock-up.
> >
> > When you or I acquire a .com name for a year we each have to
> > pay a registry fee of about $7 to cover the purported costs
> > that the registry incurs in order to handle our transaction
> > and publish the name into the zone and operate the zone
> > servers. We pay that fee even if we relinquish the name in a week.
> >
> > That would suggest that in June 2008, where there were
> > 15,738,292 AGP names, that the .com registry was bearing a
> > cost (at that pegged $7 registry fee) of $110,168,044/month -
> > or about $1,322,016,528/year.
> >
> > There are two conclusions:
> >
> > Either the .com registry has now saved over 1.3 billion $US
> > that we were previously paying and which it is now retaining
> > as profit.
> >
> > Or the registry fee is pegged by ICANN at a hyper inflated level.
> >
> > Either way, we the community of internet users are a Boston
> > fish - we are scrod.
> >
> > The point of this little exercise is to show that ICANN's
> > fiat registry fees, based on thing more than hot air emitted
> > by the registries and accompanied by no audit of actual
> > registry costs, is costing domain name users a very large
> > pile of money every year.
> >
> > It is long past time that ICANN be required to perform a
> > believable, public, and deep audit of registry costs and to
> > adjust the registry fee component of domain name prices to be
> > in conformance with those costs.
> >
> > --karl--
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar
>ge-lists.icann.org
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
On 08/14/2009 12:33 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Personally, I would not focus on the price as the main criterion for
> evaluating the success of the elimination of domain tasting.
The point that I was trying to make was something altogether apart from
the tasting issue.
Rather, I was suggesting that the tasting issue provided yet another
chunk of evidence that the registry fees are completely out-of-line with
the actual cost of providing the registry services.
The money that is removed from the pockets of the domain name buying
public and transferred to the registries by virtue of these inflated
registry fees accumulates every year into a fairly large chunk of money
- measurable in several multiples of hundreds of millions of dollars.
As I mentioned, the object should be to bring registry fees into
conformance with actual registry costs.
Unfortunately ICANN has never inquired, much less researched, what those
costs actually are. And as a result, the community of internet users is
being forced every year to pay the better part of a $billion in highly
inflated fees to registries.
--karl--
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Honestly Karl, I wish domain names cost $100/year. There could be a hardship
claus that people could apply for or something if they really can't afford a
domain name. But at $100/year, we would have less spammers and scammers
using domain names and speculators would own a much smaller list of domain
names. As far as businesses are concerned, if they can't invest $100/year in
their online location, maybe they should rethink their business plan. A
spammer can put a blemish on a domain name through bad use and get it banned
from google and other search engines. Then when they let the domain expire
or drop it, the new registrant has no idea the domain name has problems.
Your point is well-taken and understood. Just want to add that there are
more concerns than just the freedom to get a domain name to consider.
Chris McElroy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Auerbach"
To: "At-Large Worldwide"
Cc: "'ALAC Working List'"
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
> On 08/14/2009 12:33 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> Personally, I would not focus on the price as the main criterion for
>> evaluating the success of the elimination of domain tasting.
>
> The point that I was trying to make was something altogether apart from
> the tasting issue.
>
> Rather, I was suggesting that the tasting issue provided yet another chunk
> of evidence that the registry fees are completely out-of-line with the
> actual cost of providing the registry services.
>
> The money that is removed from the pockets of the domain name buying
> public and transferred to the registries by virtue of these inflated
> registry fees accumulates every year into a fairly large chunk of money -
> measurable in several multiples of hundreds of millions of dollars.
>
> As I mentioned, the object should be to bring registry fees into
> conformance with actual registry costs.
>
> Unfortunately ICANN has never inquired, much less researched, what those
> costs actually are. And as a result, the community of internet users is
> being forced every year to pay the better part of a $billion in highly
> inflated fees to registries.
>
> --karl--
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
On 08/17/2009 10:46 AM, Chris McElroy 786-317-8774 wrote:
> Honestly Karl, I wish domain names cost $100/year. There could be a
> hardship claus that people could apply for or something if they really
> can't afford a domain name. But at $100/year, we would have less
> spammers and scammers using domain names and speculators would own a
> much smaller list of domain names.
Similarly my wife and I wish that airplane tickets cost what they did
back in the 1970's (with adjustments for inflation), that way a typical
flight would be well over $1000 which would discourage people bringing
undisciplined children and would allow the airlines to give better service.
The point of this is that we all tend to seek to regulate the behaviour
of others; we have a natural tendency to seek to impose anti-competitive
rules to satisfy our own personal desires.
Competition, particularly in a technology based area, brings change.
The primary argument against open competition (competing roots) in the
DNS area is that it would bring the possibility of change that might
disturb some people.
That argument, however, leads to stasis. It could have been used by the
telegraph people to argue that email would be duplicative and would
confuse people. And the introduction of the push-button tone-dial
telephone certainly brought some confusion - "what are those # and *
buttons for?"
My wife's mother was confused by her cell phone because it had no dial
tone. If we were to use the arguments that fly around DNS then we ought
to ban mobile phones.
You are, of course, free to pay a lot of money for domain names, I don't
think registrars will turn you down. But the choice of one ought not to
be imposed onto the many.
--karl--
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Chris McElroy 786-317-8774 wrote:
> But at $100/year, we would have less spammers and scammers using domain names and speculators would own a much smaller list of domain names.
...
> A spammer can put a blemish on a domain name through bad use and get it banned from google and other search engines. Then when they let the domain expire or drop it, the new registrant has no idea the domain name has problems.
True and not true.
Case in point: cpeb-online.com just registered.
I was previously alerted to this domain a while ago by the legitimate
owners of the bank being spoofed. Identity theft was used for the
registration. It was put on hold by Tucows after an alert to them that
it was being used to spoof a bank.
Now somebody seemingly else has registered it. However, digging a bit
bit deeper shows it is once again the same party who manages to find
his way through an incredible number of domains per annum. Historic
records shows he may run between registrars trying to register the
same domains numerous times, many drop and registrations not accepted
until eventually the registration sticks somewhere.
In the process he reveals the numerous identities he uses.
The reason why this is so easy for him, is that he is using credit
cards, other peoples' cards. This has been verified to be the case in
the past. :(
For those interested in digging - PAULMARTINSCHAMBER.COM is a missing
link.
This is one guy, yet we have many of them in the scam, spam, abuse
arena.
However, these actors devalue if anything, the market value of a
domain name. What would you pay for cpeb-online.com if it matched your
domaining requirements?
As an attorney said a few months ago after finding out about a domain
spoofing him and registered to his address (and as such legally
belonging to him), though registered via a free email address:
"I might prefer to simply allow the name to be canceled as I have no
wish to be associated with what might have have been a vehicle used to
facilitate frauds."
A consolidated registrar/registry/whoever approach is needed to weed
out these bad actors and that may well include a domain price hike or
using extra funds some believe to be available resulting from the less
AGP drops.
Or maybe not either? The need to protect the very resource they a
earning a living with is also in their best interest. It will also
save them on and their resellers on charge backs.
So yes Chris, agreed, abusers do devalue a domain name's worth.
However financial barriers is not the answer as this will simply mean
more of other people's money will be stolen as well while punishing
legitimate domain users using their own money to pay for domains.
Derek
> ... A spammer can put a blemish on a
> domain name through bad use and get it banned from google and other
> search engines. Then when they let the domain expire or drop it, the new
> registrant has no idea the domain name has problems.
>
> Your point is well-taken and understood. Just want to add that there are
> more concerns than just the freedom to get a domain name to consider.
>
> Chris McElroy
>
>
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[SPAM] [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Great points Derek. it is complicated. It still boils down to ICANN needing
to open more commercially-viable tlds and stop with the mobis and museums
and aeros just to make it appear that they are approving new tlds.
With more tlds, the Internet could almost read like a phone book and it
would be easier to find what you are looking for. ICANN's collusion to keep
dot com in the forefront is hurting commerce and it needs to stop.
There have already been lawsuits regarding the AGP, NetSol's practice of
using it to hold up registrations, etc. Now some of those problems have been
addressed. Are lawsuits the only action that ICANN will pay attention to?
I'm launching dot SEO soon. I plan to apply to ICANN for approval. I also
plan to proceed regardless of their decision. There are workarounds for
everything. And in the end there are always lawyers.
I'm pretty much past the whole "Let's appeal to ICANN to do the right thing"
approach. They change the rules as they go along to suit their friends.
Everything from the makeup of the BoD to the approval of new tlds gets the
rules changed whenever they feel like it. They have mismanaged the entire
process from day 1.
But ICANN, you will have a chance to do the right thing when I apply for
approval. We'll see how that goes. The days of you being the only option for
someone to run their own tld are pretty much over. If you don't know that
already, someone is misinforming you.
I still hold out sincere hope that ICANN will change it's ways, but then I'm
idealistic. My realistic side says that I may yet have to file another
lawsuit to get things done. I really hate going that route, but I can't let
ICANN dictate what business I can or cannot start.
My business plan is solid, but none of ICANN's business. The BoD does not
have the expertise to decide what is or is not a viable business plan nor do
they have a mandate to do so. My finances are not their business either.
Even government contracts are awarded to companies that do not yet have all
the finances. It is assumed that with contract in hand, financing can be
found. ICANN insists that needs to be done before you apply creating a
barrier to small business owners getting into the domain business. Not to
mention the enormous application fee they are asking for.
There are so many ways they are violating the laws that support free
enterprise and free trade, that it is virtually a lawyers wet dream. They
just haven't been challenged enough yet. So far, the only thing I've seen
them respond to is legal action. They certainly have a history of ignoring
anything resembling a bottom-up consensus.
As I said. I hold out hope and we will see soon.
Chris McElroy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Smythe"
To: "At-Large Worldwide"
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
> Chris McElroy 786-317-8774 wrote:
>
>> But at $100/year, we would have less spammers and scammers using domain
>> names and speculators would own a much smaller list of domain names.
> ...
>> A spammer can put a blemish on a domain name through bad use and get it
>> banned from google and other search engines. Then when they let the
>> domain expire or drop it, the new registrant has no idea the domain name
>> has problems.
>
>
> True and not true.
>
> Case in point: cpeb-online.com just registered.
>
> I was previously alerted to this domain a while ago by the legitimate
> owners of the bank being spoofed. Identity theft was used for the
> registration. It was put on hold by Tucows after an alert to them that it
> was being used to spoof a bank.
>
> Now somebody seemingly else has registered it. However, digging a bit bit
> deeper shows it is once again the same party who manages to find his way
> through an incredible number of domains per annum. Historic records shows
> he may run between registrars trying to register the same domains numerous
> times, many drop and registrations not accepted until eventually the
> registration sticks somewhere.
>
> In the process he reveals the numerous identities he uses.
>
> The reason why this is so easy for him, is that he is using credit cards,
> other peoples' cards. This has been verified to be the case in the past.
> :(
>
> For those interested in digging - PAULMARTINSCHAMBER.COM is a missing
> link.
>
> This is one guy, yet we have many of them in the scam, spam, abuse arena.
>
> However, these actors devalue if anything, the market value of a domain
> name. What would you pay for cpeb-online.com if it matched your domaining
> requirements?
>
> As an attorney said a few months ago after finding out about a domain
> spoofing him and registered to his address (and as such legally belonging
> to him), though registered via a free email address:
> "I might prefer to simply allow the name to be canceled as I have no wish
> to be associated with what might have have been a vehicle used to
> facilitate frauds."
>
> A consolidated registrar/registry/whoever approach is needed to weed out
> these bad actors and that may well include a domain price hike or using
> extra funds some believe to be available resulting from the less AGP
> drops.
>
> Or maybe not either? The need to protect the very resource they a earning
> a living with is also in their best interest. It will also save them on
> and their resellers on charge backs.
>
> So yes Chris, agreed, abusers do devalue a domain name's worth. However
> financial barriers is not the answer as this will simply mean more of
> other people's money will be stolen as well while punishing legitimate
> domain users using their own money to pay for domains.
>
> Derek
>
>
>
>> ... A spammer can put a blemish on a domain name through bad use and get
>> it banned from google and other search engines. Then when they let the
>> domain expire or drop it, the new registrant has no idea the domain name
>> has problems.
>>
>> Your point is well-taken and understood. Just want to add that there are
>> more concerns than just the freedom to get a domain name to consider.
>>
>> Chris McElroy
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
> people's money will be stolen as well while punishing legitimate domain
> users using their own money to pay for domains.
Domains should have no value, this whole mess started when we converted
the DNS into a giant flashing billboard where the big names compete for
space and speculators started buying space even if not needed with the
hope that sooner or later somebody else with big pockets and need for
space would make them rich.
Perhaps is time to start envisioning a complete new resource naming
scheme, meanwhile we have to find the way to deal with what we have
today.
So far, increasing the size of the billboard won't help much.
My .02
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Jorge Amodio wrote:
>
> Domains should have no value,
This is not practical. A name is part of an identity, a company name,
a personal name or whatever. We simply cannot escape that fact. The
natural tendency is to pull this logic into the domain name space.
There is no harm in another "Jorge" also living. There is harm in
another "Jorge" trying to stop you using your name, or demanding you
pay a premium for using that name above another.
Just so if there is another party fraudulently claiming to be "Jorge",
your identity and using your address, and committing fraud using your
name. That is identity theft in addition to the fraud the scammer or
whatever is trying to commit using your name.
Likewise if you have a company "Jorge Inc" and somebody else registers
"Jorge Inc Online" and abuses your good name and the goodwill you
built up in your client base for their own monetary or fraudulent
purposes.
We simply cannot deny the value of a domain name, not directly as a
$10 virtual purchase, but definitely indirectly in terms of harm.
Derek
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
>> Domains should have no value,
>
> This is not practical.
In the current state of affairs, I agree.
The root problem relies that we are using the Domain Name System
for something it was not designed for.
> A name is part of an identity, a company name, a
> personal name or whatever. We simply cannot escape that fact. The natural
> tendency is to pull this logic into the domain name space.
Right, but the DNS was not conceived as an "identity" system and
we imposed uniqueness on each branch of the tree where we can't
have another jorge.com, then as proof of concept and to expand
the name space we have now jorge.biz, but wait there are many
more jorges out there, so now we'll create a couple of thousands
gTLDs to hopefully accommodate them all.
On the other hand Joe sees that jorge is very popular or well
known, so he will take a couple of jorge.whatever with the
hope that one of the jorges will pay him for that name, and
also as you said we have Jim that wants to pretend to be
jorge, and then all this becomes a roman circus and a
merchants paradise with lax regulations where a name
becomes a commodity with dubious value.
These issues will never go away until we come up with
a solution to the root problem, which is that the DNS is
not a directory service.
Meanwhile domain tasting, front running, hijacking, etc, etc,
will keep happening and the issue is how to mitigate or
minimize the problem and its side effects.
My .02
Regards
Jorge.notheone
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> On 08/14/2009 12:33 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> Personally, I would not focus on the price as the main criterion for
>> evaluating the success of the elimination of domain tasting.
>
> The point that I was trying to make was something altogether apart
> from the tasting issue.
>
> Rather, I was suggesting that the tasting issue provided yet another
> chunk of evidence that the registry fees are completely out-of-line
> with the actual cost of providing the registry services.
And the cost of Coca Cola is totally out of line with the price of sugar
and water. But that's not the point.
ICANN, its wisdom, has made the philosophical call that domain names are
to be treated as commodities rather than identities, and as such are
subject the the whims of the market. The price of a domain is related
simply to what others are willing to pay for it, not the cost to
deliver. Verisign's shareholders should expect no less.
Having chosen the commodity path, it's up to ICANN to ensure healthy
competition and protection from abuse. Beyond that, I am dubious about
artificial price controls.
If people think they're getting gouged, let's give them some
alternatives. I think that this is why most folks in At-Large support
new gTLDs and a diversity of registry operators -- the more the merrier,
so long as there are some assertions of registrant rights (and
production of such a document is now underway, though slowly). There's
nothing *requiring* a registry to be domainer-friendly.
Despite the obvious good intentions, I am extremely wary of injecting
dubious price-policing into a free market. If it's not a free market,
then let's address *that*.
- Evan
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[ALAC] [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> On 08/14/2009 12:33 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> Personally, I would not focus on the price as the main criterion for
>> evaluating the success of the elimination of domain tasting.
>
> The point that I was trying to make was something altogether apart
> from the tasting issue.
>
> Rather, I was suggesting that the tasting issue provided yet another
> chunk of evidence that the registry fees are completely out-of-line
> with the actual cost of providing the registry services.
And the cost of Coca Cola is totally out of line with the price of sugar
and water. But that's not the point.
ICANN, its wisdom, has made the philosophical call that domain names are
to be treated as commodities rather than identities, and as such are
subject the the whims of the market. The price of a domain is related
simply to what others are willing to pay for it, not the cost to
deliver. Verisign's shareholders should expect no less.
Having chosen the commodity path, it's up to ICANN to ensure healthy
competition and protection from abuse. Beyond that, I am dubious about
artificial price controls.
If people think they're getting gouged, let's give them some
alternatives. I think that this is why most folks in At-Large support
new gTLDs and a diversity of registry operators -- the more the merrier,
so long as there are some assertions of registrant rights (and
production of such a document is now underway, though slowly). There's
nothing *requiring* a registry to be domainer-friendly.
Despite the obvious good intentions, I am extremely wary of injecting
dubious price-policing into a free market. If it's not a free market,
then let's address *that*.
- Evan
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Evan,
We can hardly say that .com business has something to do with free
market. It's sure for fact that .com has naturally evolved to become
most valuable domain commodity incomparable to any other TLD whatsoever.
In the middle of the process, however, ICANN honorable establishment
decided to accept eternal renewals thus de facto supporting monopoly
over the widest part of domain market. This is quite far from the belief
that ICANN should ensure healthy competition. Realizing this one should
not be dubious about artificial price controls as a logical consequence
of such a monopoly-dominant decision.
Domain tasting is in somewhat similar situation. We are all here proud
of achieving something that has significantly decreased the abuse
(thanks God), at least for the time being, but it is to say that it was
again ICANN who established the counter-productive concept of AGP
despite publicly expressed reservations from the very beginning when the
tasting appeared to become that abusive.
Both situations have something in common, ICANN's tendency to solve
problems it generates. Domain tasting is thus ICANN's victory over
ICANN.
Dominik
-----Original Message-----
From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan
Leibovitch
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 6:18 PM
To: At-Large Worldwide
Cc: 'ALAC Working List'
Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> On 08/14/2009 12:33 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> Personally, I would not focus on the price as the main criterion for
>> evaluating the success of the elimination of domain tasting.
>
> The point that I was trying to make was something altogether apart
> from the tasting issue.
>
> Rather, I was suggesting that the tasting issue provided yet another
> chunk of evidence that the registry fees are completely out-of-line
> with the actual cost of providing the registry services.
And the cost of Coca Cola is totally out of line with the price of sugar
and water. But that's not the point.
ICANN, its wisdom, has made the philosophical call that domain names are
to be treated as commodities rather than identities, and as such are
subject the the whims of the market. The price of a domain is related
simply to what others are willing to pay for it, not the cost to
deliver. Verisign's shareholders should expect no less.
Having chosen the commodity path, it's up to ICANN to ensure healthy
competition and protection from abuse. Beyond that, I am dubious about
artificial price controls.
If people think they're getting gouged, let's give them some
alternatives. I think that this is why most folks in At-Large support
new gTLDs and a diversity of registry operators -- the more the merrier,
so long as there are some assertions of registrant rights (and
production of such a document is now underway, though slowly). There's
nothing *requiring* a registry to be domainer-friendly.
Despite the obvious good intentions, I am extremely wary of injecting
dubious price-policing into a free market. If it's not a free market,
then let's address *that*.
- Evan
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i
cann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
On 08/14/2009 09:18 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> Karl Auerbach wrote:
>> Rather, I was suggesting that the tasting issue provided yet another
>> chunk of evidence that the registry fees are completely out-of-line
>> with the actual cost of providing the registry services.
> And the cost of Coca Cola is totally out of line with the price of sugar
> and water. But that's not the point.
And, unlike those 80,000,000 people locked into .com, Coca Cola is
subject to competitive pressures.
> ICANN, its wisdom, has made the philosophical call that domain names are
> to be treated as commodities rather than identities, and as such are
> subject the the whims of the market. The price of a domain is related
> simply to what others are willing to pay for it, not the cost to
> deliver. Verisign's shareholders should expect no less.
As I mentioned in my prior email, the notion that a person or company
can free simply pick up its domain name identity and move to a new one
is a notion that ignores the massive switching costs (most of which are
intangibles, such as identity, "goodwill", and newer things like the
accumulation of search engine links to the old name.)
And ICANN has never "made the philosophical call" - there is no concrete
resolution that says that registries are free to charge what the market
will bear. Indeed ICANN's practice from the outset has been to the
contrary.
If one were to accept your premise that ICANN has made a "philosophical
call" that registries are in competition with one another, then ICANN
would have released the caps it has imposed on registry fees.
Things might be different if ICANN were allowing new TLDs. But ICANN
has not, and it appears that it may be yet another decade before that
happens.
.com is a very special TLD - for a very long time it was the only place
that many of us were allowed to put our internet roots. When I
registered many of my names I simply was not permitted to go into .org,
.net, or .edu. Millions of us are locked into .com for better or worse;
and ICANN has sold our internet souls to Verisign to bleed $7 per year
per name, year in and year out.
> Having chosen the commodity path, it's up to ICANN to ensure healthy
> competition and protection from abuse. Beyond that, I am dubious about
> artificial price controls.
Once a person has established an identity and built-up that identity in
a TLD, as a practical matter there longer exists a competitive
opportunity to change.
TLDs compete with one another only for newcomers. There is no real
competitive marketplace for those who have already settled into a TLD.
We saw a similar situation here in the US in the mobile phone markets.
Before phone number portability came into effect those who wanted to
jump to another mobile phone provider had to measure the sometimes
substantial costs of changing their phone number. That put a
substantial damper on the competition between mobile phone providers.
But once number portability came into play that cost vanished and
competitive forces became much stronger.
> If people think they're getting gouged,
To borrow a paraphrase from Hamlet:
Seems, .. nay it is.
We *are* getting gouged. With ICANN's help. To the tune of the better
part of $1,000,000,000 (USD) per year.
let's give them some
> alternatives.
For those already locked in new TLDs is, at best, a faint hope.
I think that this is why most folks in At-Large support
> new gTLDs and a diversity of registry operators -- the more the merrier,
I agree with that one and have for years (See
http://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/platform.htm#dnspol-tldpol ).
In fact I have my own TLD - .ewe at http://www.cavebear.com/eweregistry
[URL change coming soon, if I ever get a chance to finish the registry
code to make it a real working system.]
But having new TLDs does not redress the fact that ICANN is allowing
Verisign and others to bleed their captive customers.
> Despite the obvious good intentions, I am extremely wary of injecting
> dubious price-policing into a free market. If it's not a free market,
> then let's address *that*.
If you really are in favor of what you say, then I would suspect that
you advocate the dropping of the registry fee caps that are in ICANN's
contracts and in its legal settlement with Verisign.
--karl--
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
On Aug 14, 2009, at 12:18 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> If it's not a free market,
> then let's address *that*.
Its not a free and competitive market. This is definitely a policy
issue of merit.
/r
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Hi, ALAC asked for an issues report on domain name tasting in 2006.
This is the first step in the policy development process. ALAC can
take credit for this.
I offer Wendy's original teleconf notes (wiki has been changed
though) and a subsequent note after Marrakech's public forum
presentation, which Annette gave.
I remember she and I put the powerpoint together. It was historic! I
wonder if I still have it!
Delivered-To: pollyl-netmom:com-mom@netmom.com
X-Virus-Check-By: mailwash32.pair.com
Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 17:26:26 -0400
To: alac@icann.org
From: Wendy Seltzer
Subject: [alac] Some proposed working groups
I put the notes I took of action items from our teleconference onto
the ICANNwiki at
, to which I see
someone has already made some additions.
Since we clearly cannot get all of our work done through once-monthly
teleconferences, especially when the teleconference facilities are so
awful, I reiterate that we should do more through sub-committee
working groups (formal or informal). Here would be my suggestions
(some already formed):
Budget (John, Jacqueline, Annette)
Website/communications (Jean, Izumi, Sebastian (I think))
Research (Wendy, Bret, Alice, Annette)
Outreach
Meetings (i.e., scheduling and organization for the ICANN meetings)
ALS/RALOs
Topic-oriented: These can be more fluid, coming into existence when
we want to learn more about a particular topic or to provide advice
to the Board.
IDN
New gTLD
"existing contracts"
Privacy (Wendy, ...)
"Domain Tasting" and other end-user issues with domain name
registration and use
Trademark and other restrictions on domain registration
RALO workshop in Marrakech (Jacqueline, Vittorio, Wendy, Annette)
--Wendy
--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.com
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
Chilling Effects: http://www.chillingeffects.org
From: "Bret Fausett"
To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" ,
"'Council GNSO'"
Cc: ,
Subject: [alac] RE: [council] Request for issues report from ALAC
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:44:39 -0700
Yes, Bruce. The ALAC will send a formal request on this. You should receive
it in the next day or so. We will transmit to Staff and the Board as well.
Bret
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 3:19 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Cc: annette.muehlberg@web.de
> Subject: [council] Request for issues report from ALAC
>
> Hello All,
>
> I have just heard the ALAC presentation in the public forum.
>
> There was mention of a request to produce an issues report on
> domain name tasting.
>
> For reference, please note from the Policy Development
> process in Annex A: GNSO Policy-Development Process
>
> http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA
>
> 1. Raising an Issue
>
> An issue may be raised for consideration as part of the PDP
> by any of the following:
>
> c. Advisory Committee Initiation. An Advisory Committee may
> raise an issue for policy development by action of such
> committee to commence the PDP, and transmission of that
> request to the GNSO Council.
>
> I assume if ALAC wants an issues report on this topic that
> they will formally transmit a request to the GNSO Council.
>
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> Chair, GNSO Council
>
>
--
Jean Armour Polly
http://www.netmom.com/
ex- Interim ALAC member North America
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
I find it fascinating -- and disturbing -- that one of our longest
discussion threads of recent memory is not about policy, or even
process, but assigning credit.
If only we could have something even half as engaging regarding the most
pressing current issue (IMO) which is proposing an alternative to the
massive excesses of the IRT report. Without an alternative in hand, that
piece of crap is the only approach to trademarks that ICANN senior staff
and Board have in their hands.
If that doesn't interest you, please find something else that does.
There are certainly enough going on right now:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rJKtp8gl3W5-ZcY_xMpPg5w
Pick a working group and get involved, wake it up if you have to.
ALAC has an acute shortage of people stepping forward to help on policy.
We have an otherwise-needless Executive Committee formed merely because
there are so many vacuums to fill, which means the same small core of
people are being called upon to to most of the work. And then people
complain about inclusiveness...
Please -- those of you who have so keenly debated who deserves the
honours for past actions -- consider that we have many more such
potential actions ahead. Let's not make domain tasting the ONLY policy
achievement we of which should be proud.
- Evan
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[ALAC] [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
I find it fascinating -- and disturbing -- that one of our longest
discussion threads of recent memory is not about policy, or even
process, but assigning credit.
If only we could have something even half as engaging regarding the most
pressing current issue (IMO) which is proposing an alternative to the
massive excesses of the IRT report. Without an alternative in hand, that
piece of crap is the only approach to trademarks that ICANN senior staff
and Board have in their hands.
If that doesn't interest you, please find something else that does.
There are certainly enough going on right now:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rJKtp8gl3W5-ZcY_xMpPg5w
Pick a working group and get involved, wake it up if you have to.
ALAC has an acute shortage of people stepping forward to help on policy.
We have an otherwise-needless Executive Committee formed merely because
there are so many vacuums to fill, which means the same small core of
people are being called upon to to most of the work. And then people
complain about inclusiveness...
Please -- those of you who have so keenly debated who deserves the
honours for past actions -- consider that we have many more such
potential actions ahead. Let's not make domain tasting the ONLY policy
achievement we of which should be proud.
- Evan
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Well said!
Since I have been accused of trolling, fear mongering etc I will not
post this openly.
I strongly believe their should be some form of consumer protection at
registry level, exactly the excuse used by the IRT crowd to justify
why brands should be protected.
Right now I can pull up a list of "bnk" names - yes banks, all
spoofing banks.
That said, it does not stop there. There may or may not be a trademark
involved, yet the same party may indiscriminately spoof real
institutions (and mark) or create totally fictitious banks or
companies for various types of fraud.
Proven is that the whois is bogus, steals id's of real people
(sometimes even their credit card details and funds :( ), yet all
linked to the same emails.
If we were to say that after 200 domains, all fraudulent, party X will
most likely not be publishing an informational site with
alifaxbnk.com, we would have something.
Or as the case is currently and by no means unique, "UK hoster"
(actually Nigerian) Agamahost.com selling domains, SSL certificates
etc complete with websites to his friends back home for 419 purposes... :
https://www.bdl-es.com/ibank/TLEU/tleu/jsp/uk/ing/home/index14c6.html?rf=
https://www.albbplconline.com/ (hidden in there somewhere)
https://www.nyfbonline.org/
https://www.fcbplcuk.com/ibank/secure/myaccount/disclaimer/asp/LogonFram...
plus, plus, plus many more ....
This requires a consolidated approach by all registrars, maybe
registries even?
Right now "trust" is being sold down the drain at a rapid rate. Being
in IT for close to 30 year I am short of neurotic of all things
registrar and internet related, 100 times more knowledgeable than the
average user in things internet related. Yet even I cannot say anymore
what is sometimes real and what not.
What chance has the average consumer have? Yet while Rome is burning
people are trying to attribute credit?
My 5c worth.
Derek Smythe
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> I find it fascinating -- and disturbing -- that one of our longest
> discussion threads of recent memory is not about policy, or even
> process, but assigning credit.
>
> If only we could have something even half as engaging regarding the most
> pressing current issue (IMO) which is proposing an alternative to the
> massive excesses of the IRT report. Without an alternative in hand, that
> piece of crap is the only approach to trademarks that ICANN senior staff
> and Board have in their hands.
>
> If that doesn't interest you, please find something else that does.
> There are certainly enough going on right now:
> http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rJKtp8gl3W5-ZcY_xMpPg5w
> Pick a working group and get involved, wake it up if you have to.
>
> ALAC has an acute shortage of people stepping forward to help on policy.
> We have an otherwise-needless Executive Committee formed merely because
> there are so many vacuums to fill, which means the same small core of
> people are being called upon to to most of the work. And then people
> complain about inclusiveness...
>
> Please -- those of you who have so keenly debated who deserves the
> honours for past actions -- consider that we have many more such
> potential actions ahead. Let's not make domain tasting the ONLY policy
> achievement we of which should be proud.
>
> - Evan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Derek Smythe wrote:
> Since I have been accused of trolling, fear mongering etc I will not
> post this openly.
Um... It's too late for that, these are public mailing lists...
> I strongly believe their should be some form of consumer protection at
> registry level, exactly the excuse used by the IRT crowd to justify
> why brands should be protected.
Sounds like you want to be part of the registrant right discussion going
on. That group, like so many others, needs our participation. Are you
interested?
- Evan
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
"I will not post this openly."
should be
"I would not normally post this openly."
Aplogies
Derek
Derek Smythe wrote:
> Well said!
>
> Since I have been accused of trolling, fear mongering etc I will not
> post this openly.
>
> I strongly believe their should be some form of consumer protection at
> registry level, exactly the excuse used by the IRT crowd to justify why
> brands should be protected.
>
> Right now I can pull up a list of "bnk" names - yes banks, all spoofing
> banks.
>
> That said, it does not stop there. There may or may not be a trademark
> involved, yet the same party may indiscriminately spoof real
> institutions (and mark) or create totally fictitious banks or companies
> for various types of fraud.
>
> Proven is that the whois is bogus, steals id's of real people (sometimes
> even their credit card details and funds :( ), yet all linked to the
> same emails.
>
> If we were to say that after 200 domains, all fraudulent, party X will
> most likely not be publishing an informational site with alifaxbnk.com,
> we would have something.
>
> Or as the case is currently and by no means unique, "UK hoster"
> (actually Nigerian) Agamahost.com selling domains, SSL certificates etc
> complete with websites to his friends back home for 419 purposes... :
>
> https://www.bdl-es.com/ibank/TLEU/tleu/jsp/uk/ing/home/index14c6.html?rf=
> https://www.albbplconline.com/ (hidden in there somewhere)
> https://www.nyfbonline.org/
> https://www.fcbplcuk.com/ibank/secure/myaccount/disclaimer/asp/LogonFram...
>
> plus, plus, plus many more ....
>
> This requires a consolidated approach by all registrars, maybe
> registries even?
>
> Right now "trust" is being sold down the drain at a rapid rate. Being
> in IT for close to 30 year I am short of neurotic of all things
> registrar and internet related, 100 times more knowledgeable than the
> average user in things internet related. Yet even I cannot say anymore
> what is sometimes real and what not.
>
> What chance has the average consumer have? Yet while Rome is burning
> people are trying to attribute credit?
>
> My 5c worth.
>
> Derek Smythe
>
>
> Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>> I find it fascinating -- and disturbing -- that one of our longest
>> discussion threads of recent memory is not about policy, or even
>> process, but assigning credit.
>>
>> If only we could have something even half as engaging regarding the most
>> pressing current issue (IMO) which is proposing an alternative to the
>> massive excesses of the IRT report. Without an alternative in hand, that
>> piece of crap is the only approach to trademarks that ICANN senior staff
>> and Board have in their hands.
>>
>> If that doesn't interest you, please find something else that does.
>> There are certainly enough going on right now:
>> http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rJKtp8gl3W5-ZcY_xMpPg5w
>> Pick a working group and get involved, wake it up if you have to.
>>
>> ALAC has an acute shortage of people stepping forward to help on policy.
>> We have an otherwise-needless Executive Committee formed merely because
>> there are so many vacuums to fill, which means the same small core of
>> people are being called upon to to most of the work. And then people
>> complain about inclusiveness...
>>
>> Please -- those of you who have so keenly debated who deserves the
>> honours for past actions -- consider that we have many more such
>> potential actions ahead. Let's not make domain tasting the ONLY policy
>> achievement we of which should be proud.
>>
>> - Evan
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
>>
>>
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
>
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
> Either the .com registry has now saved over 1.3 billion $US that we were
> previously paying and which it is now retaining as profit.
>
> Or the registry fee is pegged by ICANN at a hyper inflated level.
I don't believe that Verisign has ever offered a cost justification for
their registry fees. Considering that .COM and .NET use the exact same
infrastructure, it'd take some pretty creative cost accounting to justify
$6.86 for .COM and $4.98 for .NET.
At the time the board approved the settlement that gave Verisign eternal
renewals and price increases, board members told me they wanted stability,
and showed no interest in whether the price was related to costs.
Considering that roughly the same board seems to have no problem with the
CFO speculating in the stock market with the corporation's reserve funds,
with a well documented loss of over $4M, it doesn't seem realistic to
expect them to exert meaningful financial oversight over anything.
That's why they were doing you a favor when they didn't let you see those
tedious and confusing financial statements.
R's,
John
See http://weblog.johnlevine.com/ICANN/vrsncom.html
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:49:33 -0400 (EDT), "John R. Levine"
wrote:
>> Either the .com registry has now saved over 1.3 billion $US that we were
>> previously paying and which it is now retaining as profit.
>>
>> Or the registry fee is pegged by ICANN at a hyper inflated level.
>
> I don't believe that Verisign has ever offered a cost justification for
> their registry fees. Considering that .COM and .NET use the exact same
> infrastructure, it'd take some pretty creative cost accounting to justify
> $6.86 for .COM and $4.98 for .NET.
Allow me to be the devil's advocate here.
In a capitalist environment, market prices are based on supply and demand.
As long as customers are willing to pay the price being asked, there is no
reason why VRSN would lower its prices. That is what a VRSN shareholder
expects the company to do.
If there was ever a trend that .com registrations would decrease because of
the price, VRSN would adapt its strategy.
The bottom line is that if you are unhappy with the price you pay, vote
with your feet and get a cheaper domain name. It's a free market. There is
competition.
Patrick
--
Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu
Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu
Identica: http://identica.vande-walle.eu
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[ALAC] [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:49:33 -0400 (EDT), "John R. Levine"
wrote:
>> Either the .com registry has now saved over 1.3 billion $US that we were
>> previously paying and which it is now retaining as profit.
>>
>> Or the registry fee is pegged by ICANN at a hyper inflated level.
>
> I don't believe that Verisign has ever offered a cost justification for
> their registry fees. Considering that .COM and .NET use the exact same
> infrastructure, it'd take some pretty creative cost accounting to justify
> $6.86 for .COM and $4.98 for .NET.
Allow me to be the devil's advocate here.
In a capitalist environment, market prices are based on supply and demand.
As long as customers are willing to pay the price being asked, there is no
reason why VRSN would lower its prices. That is what a VRSN shareholder
expects the company to do.
If there was ever a trend that .com registrations would decrease because of
the price, VRSN would adapt its strategy.
The bottom line is that if you are unhappy with the price you pay, vote
with your feet and get a cheaper domain name. It's a free market. There is
competition.
Patrick
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
On Aug 13, 2009, at 2:39 AM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
> vote
> with your feet and get a cheaper domain name.
Someone is selling .com cheaper than Verisign? Awesome. Sign me up.
/r
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
>> vote with your feet and get a cheaper domain name.
>
> Someone is selling .com cheaper than Verisign? Awesome. Sign me up.
Sure, I sell them for 50 cents/year. There's a minor technical DNS tweak
you have to make to change the addresses of the root servers, but that's
good value in return for saving over $6/year!
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
On 08/12/2009 11:39 PM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
>> $6.86 for .COM and $4.98 for .NET.
>
> Allow me to be the devil's advocate here.
>
> In a capitalist environment, market prices are based on supply and
> demand. As long as customers are willing to pay the price being
> asked, there is no reason why VRSN would lower its prices. That is
> what a VRSN shareholder expects the company to do.
I have long held a position similar to the one you suggest - that
registries can charge what the market will bear - but only on certain
limited conditions:
- That such rates not be imposed on those already locked in and only
be imposed on those who are coming anew into the TLD.
- That customers be able to lock-in their initial terms for very long
periods of time, i.e. have a right to renew at the lesser of the current
contract fee schedule or the rate being offered to new customers.
I would suggest that we examine your premise, i.e. of a free marketplace
in which customers have a choice.
You are assuming that TLDs are fungible - that .com and .biz are
equivalent in the eyes of our customers - and that the costs of making a
change are negligible.
Yet neither is true.
TLDs are not fungible. In the eyes of many consumers, companies
(particularly ones, such as mine with three-letter names) in .com are
perceived as having more substance than those in TLDs such as .biz or
.bz. So for us to move out of .com would mean a reduction in our
perceived business reputation.
Changing TLDs is not something for the feint of heart - for many
businesses it would be effective suicide. In my case changing to a new
TLD would require me to abandon all of the recognition - including all
of the search engine material and all of the URL's that currently point
to me.
As a US appellate court recently found, the space within a TLD is not a
marketplace subject to competitive pressures. Customers are locked in.
Absent an enormous burden neither IBM nor Cavebear (or AT&T or
Microsoft or Google or ... the list goes on and on) is going to leave
.com - we have all built internet presence and reputation and the loss
of accumulated "goodwill" and the cost of changing far exceeds the fiat
registry fee.
In other words, voting with our feet is not a realistic answer for those
millions upon millions of people who are already made their TLD choice.
The name of the most commonly used DNS software is "BIND" - and that
reflects what happens at the instant one selects a TLD and begins to
build an internet presence: One becomes bound to that TLD and change
becomes increasingly expensive.
Suppose your state's utility commission should say that you now are
required to pay $50/month surcharge - would your answer be that you can
vote with your feet and live off the electrical grid? Or suppose you
are sitting on a ship half way to Hawaii and the captain comes on and
says "We are pleased to announce that all passengers are now subject to
a $1000 docking fee." You could vote with your feet and jump off and
swim 2000km to shore. Few people would take that option. And few would
consider that they had a realistic choice.
The simple fact is that while there is a valid argument that *before* a
consumer chooses a TLD there is a competitive situation. But once the
choice is made the consumer is stuck.
I know for a fact that I have never had a choice about the registry
component of the price for my names in .com - the registry fee component
was simply dictated by ICANN unto me and I had a blunt choice: pay or
abandon my names in .com.
--karl--
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Karl,
On domain market pricing.
The market of Times 1000 companies could bear £1m plus pricing
The market of shoe shiners in Boston hotels probably balk at paying $5
or $10 and prefer to be found as you walk past.
The market for the millions in developing country shanty town probably
falls far far below this.
By your own analysis (the value to you of a domain becomes higher over
time) the bearable price for those with longterm usage of a domain is
going to be much higher than those who are new registrants.
If you except one class (long term registrants) from market pricing
why not others? Do they not all need protection?
Policy that has the impact of favouring incumbents and prejudicing new
entrants is, well, prejudiced.
As an aside I would also observe that if you are a Times 1000 company
you might view .com today as a shabby down at heel zone and would
prefer either to have your own TLD which at $500,000 or under is
pretty cheap for you and or join a community of business users under
an exclusive prestige community TLD restricted to just the favoured few.
Why share your branding with all sorts when you can dump them and move
on? The migration cost is easily managed by keeping your old .com but
over a few years build links exclusively to your shiny new prestige
address and before long the commercial value you inadvertently
invested in the .com will have dissipated.
Of course if you are not in a financial position to buy in to such
high cost domains then that is 'market forces'.
I would hope this analysis would suggest that ICANN needs to limit its
interest to the technical issues of cost plus pricing to guide and
fund technical robust policies for registry operations whilst market
pricing for domains must fall within a competition jurisdiction in the
resident territory of the registry concerned subject to any relevant
international treaty.
So speculatively if you have a gtld called .beijing with registry
resident in China then the regulation of market pricing for that zone
is a matter for the Chinese authorities potentially subject to WTO
obligations, but not ICANN.
best wishes
Christian
Christian de Larrinaga
On 13 Aug 2009, at 11:31, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> On 08/12/2009 11:39 PM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
>
>>> $6.86 for .COM and $4.98 for .NET.
>>
>> Allow me to be the devil's advocate here.
>>
>> In a capitalist environment, market prices are based on supply and
>> demand. As long as customers are willing to pay the price being
>> asked, there is no reason why VRSN would lower its prices. That is
>> what a VRSN shareholder expects the company to do.
>
> I have long held a position similar to the one you suggest - that
> registries can charge what the market will bear - but only on certain
> limited conditions:
>
> - That such rates not be imposed on those already locked in and only
> be imposed on those who are coming anew into the TLD.
>
> - That customers be able to lock-in their initial terms for very long
> periods of time, i.e. have a right to renew at the lesser of the
> current
> contract fee schedule or the rate being offered to new customers.
>
> I would suggest that we examine your premise, i.e. of a free
> marketplace
> in which customers have a choice.
>
> You are assuming that TLDs are fungible - that .com and .biz are
> equivalent in the eyes of our customers - and that the costs of
> making a
> change are negligible.
>
> Yet neither is true.
>
> TLDs are not fungible. In the eyes of many consumers, companies
> (particularly ones, such as mine with three-letter names) in .com are
> perceived as having more substance than those in TLDs such as .biz or
> .bz. So for us to move out of .com would mean a reduction in our
> perceived business reputation.
>
> Changing TLDs is not something for the feint of heart - for many
> businesses it would be effective suicide. In my case changing to a new
> TLD would require me to abandon all of the recognition - including all
> of the search engine material and all of the URL's that currently
> point
> to me.
>
> As a US appellate court recently found, the space within a TLD is
> not a
> marketplace subject to competitive pressures. Customers are locked in.
> Absent an enormous burden neither IBM nor Cavebear (or AT&T or
> Microsoft or Google or ... the list goes on and on) is going to leave
> .com - we have all built internet presence and reputation and the loss
> of accumulated "goodwill" and the cost of changing far exceeds the
> fiat
> registry fee.
>
> In other words, voting with our feet is not a realistic answer for
> those
> millions upon millions of people who are already made their TLD
> choice.
>
> The name of the most commonly used DNS software is "BIND" - and that
> reflects what happens at the instant one selects a TLD and begins to
> build an internet presence: One becomes bound to that TLD and change
> becomes increasingly expensive.
>
> Suppose your state's utility commission should say that you now are
> required to pay $50/month surcharge - would your answer be that you
> can
> vote with your feet and live off the electrical grid? Or suppose you
> are sitting on a ship half way to Hawaii and the captain comes on and
> says "We are pleased to announce that all passengers are now subject
> to
> a $1000 docking fee." You could vote with your feet and jump off and
> swim 2000km to shore. Few people would take that option. And few would
> consider that they had a realistic choice.
>
> The simple fact is that while there is a valid argument that
> *before* a
> consumer chooses a TLD there is a competitive situation. But once the
> choice is made the consumer is stuck.
>
> I know for a fact that I have never had a choice about the registry
> component of the price for my names in .com - the registry fee
> component
> was simply dictated by ICANN unto me and I had a blunt choice: pay or
> abandon my names in .com.
>
> --karl--
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
I see there are two different issues here, one is that of AGP and the
other is of justification of registration fee/cost. Though they are
indirectly inter-related, I see reducing the domain name tasting
is a good step forward and ALAC and Atlarge community should
get credit for that. When we started to bring this issue, by asking
staff report to initiate GNSO policy development process, many
registry and registrars were not so supportive. Some said we should
not constrain the creative business or innovation, and others said
nothing is illegal.
Of course, that does not mean we should stop there and ignore the
cost and pricing issue of monopolisctic registry. Let's move on
if so needed.
izumi
2009/8/13 John R. Levine :
>> Either the .com registry has now saved over 1.3 billion $US that we were
>> previously paying and which it is now retaining as profit.
>>
>> Or the registry fee is pegged by ICANN at a hyper inflated level.
>
> I don't believe that Verisign has ever offered a cost justification for
> their registry fees. Considering that .COM and .NET use the exact same
> infrastructure, it'd take some pretty creative cost accounting to justify
> $6.86 for .COM and $4.98 for .NET.
>
> At the time the board approved the settlement that gave Verisign eternal
> renewals and price increases, board members told me they wanted stability,
> and showed no interest in whether the price was related to costs.
>
> Considering that roughly the same board seems to have no problem with the
> CFO speculating in the stock market with the corporation's reserve funds,
> with a well documented loss of over $4M, it doesn't seem realistic to expect
> them to exert meaningful financial oversight over anything. That's why they
> were doing you a favor when they didn't let you see those tedious and
> confusing financial statements.
>
> R's,
> John
>
> See http://weblog.johnlevine.com/ICANN/vrsncom.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
--
>> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
* * * * *
<< Writing the Future of the History >>
www.anr.org
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
Karl,
I see your maths in a different way. Your approach is kind of Madoff,
inventing pyramidal money.
This pyramidal bubble (Madoff-like value 1.3 billion $US per year) was a
cost of AGP put on Verisign, which registry had to face all that pollution
and increase its servers capabilities. I am happy Verisign could cope with
that nonsense, and even happier that AGP policy was changed, thanks to all.
Money does not arrive from nowhere, bubble is not sane.
I do not know if $7 per domain is expensive or not, but I am quite sure the
registry must have resources to cope with pollution like AGP.
Kind regards,
Elisabeth Porteneuve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Auerbach"
To: "At-Large Worldwide"
Cc: "ALAC Working List"
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
> On 08/12/2009 01:21 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
>> As the organization that started this entire policy process, At-Large
>> and ALAC can be proud of the results.
>
> I'm not so sure about that.
>
> The main problem with the massive add-grace stuff was not the churn but
> the fact that it was a transfer of costs from the "domainers", who were
> getting a free ride, onto the backs of the domain name buying public who
> were paying for the transaction costs and the lost opportunity costs due
> to the 5 day name lock-up.
>
> When you or I acquire a .com name for a year we each have to pay a
> registry fee of about $7 to cover the purported costs that the registry
> incurs in order to handle our transaction and publish the name into the
> zone and operate the zone servers. We pay that fee even if we relinquish
> the name in a week.
>
> That would suggest that in June 2008, where there were 15,738,292 AGP
> names, that the .com registry was bearing a cost (at that pegged $7
> registry fee) of $110,168,044/month - or about $1,322,016,528/year.
>
> There are two conclusions:
>
> Either the .com registry has now saved over 1.3 billion $US that we were
> previously paying and which it is now retaining as profit.
>
> Or the registry fee is pegged by ICANN at a hyper inflated level.
>
> Either way, we the community of internet users are a Boston fish - we are
> scrod.
>
> The point of this little exercise is to show that ICANN's fiat registry
> fees, based on thing more than hot air emitted by the registries and
> accompanied by no audit of actual registry costs, is costing domain name
> users a very large pile of money every year.
>
> It is long past time that ICANN be required to perform a believable,
> public, and deep audit of registry costs and to adjust the registry fee
> component of domain name prices to be in conformance with those costs.
>
> --karl--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org