RE: [ga] domain tastinmg comments
- To: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, <chris@xxxxxx>, <domain-tasting-motion@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [ga] domain tastinmg comments
- From: "Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:43:22 +0100
Do not worry too much about these things. They are simpler than they
pretend to be. If you take a brief look at GNSO Outcomes Report on
Domain Tasting, starting page 25, there are five reasons enumerated by
registrars for keeping the AGP
1. Correction of typographical errors made by registrant
2. Cart "hold" to provide access to domain names
3. Fraud remedies
4. Monitoring, testing and development of systems.
5. Addressing Registrant 'Buyer's Remorse'
1. Frankly, have you ever come across any typo-correction feature
offered by registrars/resellers. Me not. Perhaps it exists at few
registrars but that scarce occurrence, if any, just indicates weak
interest in such a service, or registrar's reluctance to offer it in
higher volume. That is, a pseudo-problem. Nevertheless, this can be
easily solved by double opt-in approach as Chris proposes.
2. and 5. I heard about for the first time in my life when I scanned the
report. And I stayed stunned. Such luxury can afford just businesses
with fair trade practices. By no means domain registrations with such
large-volume abuse proven and demonstrated.
3. has been discussing here for a few days. The problem that other
online businesses must be solving on daily basis without any advantage
similar to AGP. Why should registrars be given such prerogative over
other businesses? No answer.
4. can be accomplished in different ways.
As you can see all that are just pseudo-problems facilitating
comfortable life of spoilt registrars. It is time to wake up and start
doing standard business.
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Roberto Gaetano
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 4:03 PM
To: chris@xxxxxx; domain-tasting-motion@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ga] domain tastinmg comments
And I agree completely with you.
The devil is in the details, as usual. Questions arise:
- how will the policy change? Will the store stop grace period practice
altogether, or return only a percentage of the money paid? (this is the
- will each individual store make its own decision, or will a global
policy authority enforce elimination of the practice? In the real world,
individual shops may shout loud, because that will prevent them to put
in practice what they would call a customer service.
Probably more questions may arise. Anyway, to be clear, I am not
defending the AGP, and I am definitively objecting the excess and/or
misuse, I am only trying to figure out whether it is necessary and/or
beneficial to kill the AGP instead of killing the perverse effects.
Incidentally, I tend to think (and did not see so far any convincing
statement against) that if we apply a cost per transaction of a certain
amount instead of applying a full refund the misuse will stop (or at
least will be greatly reduced) without disallowing the market to make
use of the AGP, if the different actors decide to do so, not requiring
an intervention from the center.
But this is just my opinion. Of course, different Board members have