RE: [ga] ICANN Board can intervene to stop domain tasting for 1 year
- To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Dominik Filipp'" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "'ICANN Domain name tasting'" <domain-tasting-2008@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN Board can intervene to stop domain tasting for 1 year
- From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:02:54 -0800 (PST)
--- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> George Kirikos wrote:
> > The economics of pizzas and domain names are entirely
> > different. A pizza has labour, material and delivery costs
> > that are far above 20 cents. A domain name is an electronic
> > record in a database where the marginal costs are close to
> > zero for the registry operator, far below 20 cents.
> The point was not on economics, but on the fact that the expectation
> being able to cancel an economic transaction at zero cost is uncommon
> in the
> real world. What is the marginal cost of cancelling a reservation in
> a hotel
> or a flight? From the operational POV, not much different from the
> cancellation of a domain name record. However, you have very strict
> for cancellation of rooms and seats.
> > .....
> > PIR has essentially eliminated tasting in .org with their
> > non-refundable fee. The same would happen in .com/net should
> > ICANN move forward. It's simple economics, which the
> > automated tasters understand, but it seems some folks don't.
> I am sure everybody understands the economics.
> PIR has eliminated the tasting with their non-refundable fee in the
> same way
> airlines have eliminated the no-show with a fee that is
> non-refundable in
> case of cancellation. So what?
The point was that at:
you wrote that "I fully agree. $0.20 re-registration fee is an
That's clearly not true --- it would be entirely sufficient, as it has
been for PIR. If one wanted to make the entire $6.62 fee be
non-refundable, that would work too, naturally. But it's certainly true
that $0.20 is sufficient to eliminate the problem, and a higher number
is just over-kill.
As I mentioned in the initial post at:
any temporary policy must be "narrowly tailored as feasible to achieve
those objectives." If you want to whack it with a nuclear bomb, that's
fine, but using a small hammer will do the trick, and is "narrowly
What policy do you feel would be minimally "sufficient" if you don't
think the 20 cent fee does enough??