ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]


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

[alac] Re: Domain Monetization Background

  • To: ALAC <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [alac] Re: Domain Monetization Background
  • From: John L <johnl@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 23:50:24 -0400 (EDT)

Thanks for that useful summary. There are a few other points that are worth bringing out:

One is that there is a meaningful difference between domain monetization and domain tasting.

Monetization is a straightforward arbitrage between the cost of domain registrations and the revenue from as much pay-per-click traffic as the domain owner can get from people who visit web sites in the domain. It's a fundamentally sleazy business, since the web sites have no useful content and the way they get the traffic is basically by tricking people, either via typos or recently expired domains. But it's not the only sleazy thing that people do with domains, and it is not at all obvious to me why ICANN should do something special about this particular flavor of sleaze. If registrars are warehousing domains in violation of sections 3.7.4 and 3.7.9 of the registar agreement, I suppose that ICANN should slap their wrists, but that's trivial to circumvent by creating a nominally separate customer to hold the domains.

If we agree that this is a bad idea, it would be much more effective to persuade Google and Overture to stop paying for clicks on pages with no content, thereby dealing with a problem that is not limited to typo and expired domains. We've seen click arbitrage, people buying Google ads to drive traffic to pages that are simply other Google ads.

Domain tasting, on the other hand, uses the five day add grace period
to register domains without paying for them.  It stops being arbitrage
and instead is somewhere between larceny and extortion, because the
registration cost is zero. As many people, most eloquently Bob
Parsons, have noted, it's exploiting a loophole that shouldn't be
there in the first place.  There was a great deal of debate both in
the ICANN community and on the ICANN board about the deletion grace
period, but none at all about add grace which was apparently tossed
into the package by an ICANN staffer without asking anyone.  So says
Karl Auerbach, who was on the board at the time, and I haven't seen
anything to the contrary from any other board member.

The usual explanation of domain tasting says that the registrars
register millions of domains, watch the traffic, and then after 4.9
days they delete the ones that don't seem likely to make back the six
bucks.  I wouldn't be surprised if they just delete them all and then
reregister what they can a few minutes later.  The domains are all
nearly worthless, so why take the risk of paying anything for them?

The add grace period is just a mistake.  The problem it purports to
solve is not and never was an important one.  If you let an important
domain expire, you risk losing the entire investment made in that
domain over many years.  But if you register a domain by mistake, the
most you risk is the ten or twenty bucks you paid to register it.

Finally, it was completely predictable that people would abuse the
ability to register domains for free.  Back in the pre-ICANN days you
registered a domain by sending mail to NSI, they sent back the
confirmation, then you had several weeks to send them a check before
they deleted the domain for non-payment.  Pay per click hadn't been
invented yet, so the abuse at that point was to squat on domains with
interesting looking names and try to sell them before they were
deleted.

R's,
John



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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy