RE: [ga] domain tasting comments

["Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>]

Roberto,
 
the problem is that no one has come with any such fair use of AGP yet.
What is worse, no one seems to be willing to act this way; both the GNSO
recommendations to the board are pursuing the same narrow minded
pro-speculation intent we have been witnessing for so long. It is like a
virus nested in mind. We need a radical surgery action.

Furthermore, I see the efforts to keep the AGP not bringing an abuse
tendency much like baking a snow ball. To avoid the abuse of AGP the
number of domains qualified for applying AGP would have to be so small
that the legitimate use of AGP would make no sense any longer. Even if
just 0.001% of all deleted domains were qualified, all such domains
would immediately be abused. You know the virus...

Dominik 

________________________________

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Roberto Gaetano
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 11:37 AM
To: chris@xxxxxx; domain-tasting-motion@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'GA'
Subject: RE: [ga] domain tastinmg comments

> That allows for any mistakes someone made when filling
> out the registration form. It's simple enough for
> anyone to understand. It gives the registrant a chance
> to change their mind satisfying buyer's remorse. Show me
> any policy that allows five days for buyer's remorse on
> an item that usually, with the exception of a couple of
> registrars, costs around $10.


Chris,

That allows for any mistakes someone made when filling out the
registration form. It's simple enough for anyone to understand. It gives
the registrant a chance to change their mind satisfying buyer's remorse.
Show me any policy that allows five days for buyer's remorse on an item
that usually, with the exception of a couple of registrars, costs around
$10.  
         

IKEA has a policy of 30 days, up to 3 months with the "family Card",
regardless the amount.
In Vienna, almost every clothing shop has a week "buyer's remorse"
policy. That holds also for items that have very low price, under $10,
like socks.
 
There are two differences, though.
The first one is that you can return the item if you have not used it.
In simple words, you cannot return used socks.
The second one, more subtle, is that this policy holds because it is not
abused. If, for instance, we had the case of few customers buying socks
by the thousands, creating shortage for the vast majority of other
customers, returning them a week later, only to re-buy them for another
week, I am sure that the policy would quickly change.
 
My tendency would be to make the distinction between fair use, and
abuse. I know, it is more difficult that eliminating the use altogether,
but I think it is wiser on the long run.
 
Cheers,
Roberto