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

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

--- 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
> of
> 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
> rules
> 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:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg00858.html

you wrote that "I fully agree. $0.20 re-registration fee is an
insufficient solution."

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:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg00840.html

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
tailored."

What policy do you feel would be minimally "sufficient" if you don't
think the 20 cent fee does enough??

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/