Re: [ga] ICANN Board can intervene to stop domain tasting for 1 year

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George and all,

  I disagree that using a $0.25 fee to address this problem will be
effective or is fair to potential ligitimate registrants/users.  NSI and
any other Registrars or Registries should be made/forced to discontinue
this practice and police adaquately without additional cost, their
operations and ICANN which has oversite responsibility should be
held directly responsible for correcting/eliminating this errant practice
as after all, it was ICANN that created the problem in the first place
even after being warned long in advance.

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> --- Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > malicious in result as domain tasting itself. If not stopped, it is
> > likely that other registrars will be encouraged to do the same as
> > this
> > practice currently gives NSI an advantage over other registrars. As a
> > result, the registrants will become victims impelled to register
> > domains
> > at registrar at which they did the first (and last) whois lookup.
>
> Right, the arms race would escalate and be destabilizing to the
> registration system. Just as an example of some numbers, more than
> 50,000 domain names were reserved yesterday, making NSI #2 for most
> active nameservers:
>
> http://www.dailychanges.com/
> http://www.dailychanges.com/detail/?ns=RESERVEDDOMAINNAME.COM&date=2008-01-10&net=49807&changes=50162&act=n
>
> > Both practices have one thing in common, exploiting the AGP.
> > Elimination
> > of the AGP seems to be more and more the most effective solution to
> > avoid both and all similar AGP-related practices. That is something
> > we
> > both can agree upon.
>
> And I believe NSI wants this too. According to PC World:
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/141256/network_solutions_stands_by_name_policy.html
>
> "Mitchell added that if ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
> and Numbers), the organization that oversees the domain name system,
> would move to cut down on these type of scams, then his company
> wouldn't have to engage in this kind of automatic search registration.
> "We would be perfectly happy to end this process if ICANN or the
> registries would do something to protect small businesses or other
> small users," he said.
>
> A US$0.25 non-refundable domain name registration fee would probably be
> enough to make domain tasting or front running unprofitable, he added."
>
> I'm glad Mitchell agrees that making it uneconomic for automated
> abusers is the way to go. Whether it's a non-refundable fee, or some
> other method that would impose a real economic cost in a different way
> (similar to how CAPTCHAs attempt to reduce spam), in case a
> non-refundable fee doesn't fly (or violates a contract). E.g. forcing
> registrars to receive deletion requests on a domain by domain basis
> (above a certain fractional basis relative to kept domains), 1 piece of
> physical 8.5"x11" paper per request, signed by the registrant or the
> registrar,  and have those requests available for ICANN inspection,
> stored for 7 years, would do the trick. An abuser deleting 1 million
> names would have to store 1 million pages of paper for 7 years. That'd
> take up a lot of space! :) And imagine the time spent individually
> signing 1 million pages of paper? (i.e. make rules that one can't use
> an automated signature, but it has to be a pencil/penl) :) I'm sure we
> can brainstorm equivalent CAPTCHAs to knock out abusive
> deletions/frontrunning.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/