RE: [ga] Current Drafted Motion - Another Sort of Speculation?

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

You are right, it is just semantics. If the current motion was approved
many thousands of domains per month would still be abused in standard
domain tasting mode. I use term 'speculation' in terms of apparent
intent to keep the tasting practice, in smaller volume though.

Nevertheless, I see a problem with distinguishing between tasting and
speculation as you have depicted it. Tasting is much more than just
non-paying for domains. Do you think that domain tasting phenomenon
would disappear if the deletion/re-registration fee was say $0.01? No,
because not all people have the same opportunity to participate on the
practice on equal basis. As long as tasting practice remains a privilege
of registrars, this practice will always have to be considered abuse,
regardless of paying or non-paying for such domains.

Dominik


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of chris@xxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 3:39 PM
To: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; domain-tasting-motion@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ga] Current Drafted Motion - Another Sort of Speculation?
Importance: High


I disagree, but it may just be semantics. Domain speculation is where
someone PAYS for the domain name specuulating that it may be worth more
at some point. No different than buying up a corner lot that you think
will be valuable real estate someday. They PAY for their registrations.
Domain tasters and domain kiters do not pay and hold up thousands or
even millions of domain names that could be registered and paid for by
legitimate users.

The problem that some here do not seem to get is that the domain tasters
and kiters have networks. Taster 1 registers a name for 5 days. Taster 2
knows the exact time it will drop and reregisters it for 5 days. taster
3 another
5 days, taster 4 another 5 days. These domain names are not out of the
pool for 5 days. They are out indefinitely due to the AGP and the easy
abuse of it.

Some of the commenters here seem to believe there are a few speculators
who use the 5 day grace period to try a domain name and then drop it so
it's no big deal. That is far from what is going on. There are large
companies involved in keeping thousands of domain names unavailable to
users by continually dropping and re-registering domain names for
another 5 days over and over again. This has become big business. It is
not the work of a few speculators.

Chris McElroy


----- Original Message -----
From: <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <domain-tasting-motion@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Current Drafted Motion - Another Sort of Speculation?


>
> Dominik and all,
>
>  I agree with Dominik here.  The cap is too high
> by a factor of 10 at least!  Domain name speculation
> should be eliminated all together given that such are
> a form of public interest property although that has
> yet to be defined difinitively under law.  But at a
> minimum, speculation on Domain Names themselves is
> a bad practice that should in no way be encouraged.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>
>>Sent: Mar 25, 2008 6:51 AM
>>To: domain-tasting-motion@xxxxxxxxx
>>Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [ga] Current Drafted Motion - Another Sort of Speculation?
>>
>>
>>The current motion drafted by the GNSO Council seems to be another
>>attempt to keep the speculation aspect of AGP. The whole document is
>>vague and raises more questions than answers.
>>
>>1.
>>a. The 10% AGP cap proposed in the document is still too high. After
>>calculating the net gains at some, not all, Registrars during the last
>>month as available at
>>http://www.webhosting.info/registrars/fastest-growing-registrars/globa
l/
>>?ob=nc&oo=desc,
>>the total number of new net-gained domains during last month is
greater
>>than 1,220,000. Provided the very most of the new registrations are
.COM
>>domains and other gTLD domains 1,000,000 domains can be considered a
>>reasonable estimation of domains that qualify for the 10% cap of free
>>deletes.
>>
>>That is, 100,000 domains per month constantly available for
speculation.
>>
>>
>>b. The exemption from the application of such restriction under
>>extraordinary circumstances is unclear and not specified.
>>
>>What are such extraordinary circumstances like?
>>
>>Who will be considering and will finally accept the documented showing
>>of such circumstances?
>>Are they Registries interested in running the domain business?
>>
>>What is the maximum cap after applying the exemption? 100%? Or even
>>more?
>>
>>
>>2.
>>What will the oversight activities at ICANN look like?
>>
>>Where is the guarantee that the oversight activities will actually
take
>>place and will not be neglected or misused?
>>
>>Will the GNSO be responsible for the oversight activities?
>>The GNSO trapped by financial interests of Registries and Registrars
as
>>clearly demonstrated in the two recommendations presented to the
board?
>>The GNSO that does not even bother to seriously consider the mostly
>>supported suggestion from the public input, which is elimination of
AGP?
>>
>>And finally, who will be paying another bureaucratic staff and its
>>questionable mission?
>>Registrants?
>>
>>
>>Dominik Filipp, a GA list member
>>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> 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
> Phone: 214-244-4827