RE: [ga] domain tasting comments
- To: <domain-tasting-motion@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [ga] domain tasting comments
- From: "Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:09:26 +0100
No, my thought does not at all imply all registrars/registries are
frauds. It implies that a system loophole that allows for abuse and is
clearly identified should be eliminated and not replaced with norms that
inherently can never be as effective as systemic amendment.
In case of tasting the situation when just few dishonest registrars
getting away with continuing and profiting from the practice can lead to
loss of overall trust towards registrars and the registration process
itself. What is even much worse is that domain tasting, if not
definitely stopped, brings acceptable precedent disadvantaging honest
registrars in seeking additional revenue from it. As a consequence, the
honest registrars might feel offended by not participating on dishonest
practice. Do you see that dangerous paradox?
>> Better would be to monitor
>> deletes and if they rise above a certain level of a considered norm,
>> revoke or suspend that registrars/registries Accreditation. If such
>> levels are reached or exceeded more than three times in any given 6
>> month period, revoke that registrars and/or registries Accreditation
>> perminantly and temporarly reassign those functions to whatever
>> existing registrar/registry or other qualified entity that is
>> interested in managing same properly and ethically.
>> OR, require and verify modifications to the registration software
>> that prevents Tasting as I have already suggested.
>Disagree. None human oversight based on plethora of unclear bylaws
>vulnerable to being neglected or abused can replace inherent systemic
>element principally avoiding fraudulent activity. If such exists, of
>course. Fortunately, domain tasting is the case.
>The oversight should be necessary if there is no other way to ensure it
>in such fundamental way. Unfortunately, as in most situations in real
This response of yours is assuming that all registrars and/or
registries as well as registrants are frauds. That is certainly NOT the
case. Ergo, oversight need not be verbose as you seem to suggest. We
should not act our of fear of paranoia, but rather out of simple logic
and known historic experiance.
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]
>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
>Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
Jeffrey A. Williams
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