Re: [ga] ICANN Board can intervene to stop domain tasting for 1 year
- To: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Board can intervene to stop domain tasting for 1 year
- From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:24:55 -0800
Dominik and all,
Although your approach has some merit, it only serves to encourage
further Domain name tasting which should be eliminated all together.
A better method to address Tasting is to require all registries that
have the historical data of Tasted Domain names turn over that data
to ICANN and have ICANN require that those Tasted domain names
be turned over or made not resolvable by the registry of record.
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
"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]
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
My Phone: 214-244-4827
Dominik Filipp wrote:
> your math is basically correct, but there are several other factors
> worth noticing. Keep in mind that successful tasters have already built
> up a rich portfolio of extremely valuable names constantly bringing
> remarkable PPC revenue and make a fortune on auctions. That is,
> successful tasters have already collected a big pocket out of which they
> can cover speculation costs under the 'new tasting model' counting $0.20
> fee in. No doubt it is a complication for tasters and it will require
> redefinition of tasting activity but it still can be kept alive.
> Although it decreases the overall number of tasted names the practice
> can be refined to stay workable. I can imagine that the average cost
> $26.42 per successfully tasted domain/year can be considered acceptable
> for rich tasters at least for a certain period, say 1 year, during which
> the new model can be refined, calibrated and eventually tuned up. They
> simply can afford it regardless of possible temporary financial loss.
> The characteristics of the new possibly viable tasting model considering
> the $0.20 re-registration fee could be:
> 1. Refinement of the domain selection model based on improving domain
> appraisal methods. The overall number of tasted domains has to be
> decreased but many domains can be found profitable for PPC or auction
> purposes. Remember, that tasters have gained a rich experience of
> financial history and profitability of many, many domains inspected so
> far. No one else can compare with their ability to evaluate the market
> power of domains.
> 2. Due to the mentioned above, various domain search techniques have to
> be improved. The list of pending delete domains delivered in advance, an
> extended form of aggressive spy lookups to be developed, the whois
> lookup lists massively ordered and delivered from registries... upon
> which the smart appraisal methods will be eventually applied to get a
> result list of domains suitable for tasting.
> 3. All names successfully sold on auctions or names bringing revenue out
> of PPC advertising will then contribute to a 'risk budget' supporting
> the tasting of such selected new domains. Once the positive ballance is
> achieved, the tasting will survive.
> The number of tasted names under the new condition ($0.20 fee) will be
> decreased, that is for sure. But it is not eliminated as a phenomenon.
> After a while, some tasting registrars can make the tasting methods
> effective enough to become successful in grabbing many valuable names.
> No one knows how many.
> As for the PIR's provision, even if applying the re-registration fee for
> .ORG domains might (have) lead to the elimination of the tasting effort
> for those domains, .COMs is a whole different thing. The importance of
> .COM and .ORG domains is simply uncomparable.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Kirikos [mailto:gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 7:04 PM
> To: Roberto Gaetano; Dominik Filipp; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'ICANN Domain
> name tasting'
> Cc: twomey@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN Board can intervene to stop domain tasting for 1
> --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Dominik Filipp wrote:
> > I fully agree. $0.20 re-registration fee is an insufficient solution.
> > I am
> > always feeling some sort of domain speculation in mind when listening
> > to such proposals. If I cannot order a pizza and then cancel the order
> > just paying $0.20 fine, why should have I an extra privilege regarding
> > domain names?
> > Agree.
> 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.
> A 20 cent fee would make any speculation totally uneconomic for domain
> names. This is borne out by the fact that on the order of 99%+ of tasted
> domains get deleted during the AGP.
> Suppose that one tastes 1 million names. If 99% are deleted, and 1% are
> A] Tasting is free:
> Cost to taster is 10,000 * $6.62 + 990,000 * $0 = $66,200 (in first
> B] Non-refundable 20 cent fee:
> Cost to taster is 10,000 * $6.62 + 990,000 * $0.20 = $264,200
> The cost to the taster has increased by 300%. On a per successful name
> basis, the average cost is now $26.42.
> The numbers are even more horrible to the taster if the ratio is 99.7%
> (i.e. 1 in 300 profitable names), etc.
> The risk/reward is also entirely different. Under "A", there is
> essentially zero risk to the taster, because suppose that less than 1%
> of the names were profitable, then their costs scale linearly with the
> number of good names they discover. Under "B", if in a scan of 1 million
> names they find a tiny amount of good names, they're still on the hook
> for a minimum of $200,000. Now the payoff is entirely non-linear, and
> the risk/reward ratio is terrible.
> 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.
> George Kirikos