RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Collecting Facts

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

All,

Regardless of my views as to whether testing suitability should be
permitted, I don't find the "testing suitability" vs "intent not to pay"
explanation helpful.  At what point does the registrant cross over from
"testing" to "intending not to pay"?  Who decides?  It won't be the
registrant - what registrant will admit it?  

If we are going to include kiting in our work, we may want to use
another explanation or definition.  

Kristina   

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jothan Frakes
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:02 AM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh; Jay Westerdal; Alan Greenberg; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Collecting Facts

Mike / all- 

Anything that can be done to keep the cognitive distortion to a minimum
here to keep things productive. 

The important work we have might benefit from a quick response here.

Tasting is about reviewing suitability of a domain name.

People who are performing this activity are indending to pay, but simply
want to pay for the right thing.

I recently attended an event where VeriSign discussed these numbers with
respect to serial re-registration during AGP.  I cannot discuss the
specifics of these numbers, as they were covered under non-disclosure, 

Kiting seems more about intent not to pay, when one looks at the
definition.

The activity where AGP is leveraged in a near constant Active state
without paying for it is tracked by VeriSign.

They do check by registrar and by domain and the differences are
negligible.

I took away from that presentation that the serial re-registration was
>4 times in a row.

I concur with the group, lets keep this focused on the solutions and
keep the emotive aspects and soapboxing to a minimum in the interests of
progress.

-jothan
Jothan Frakes : DomainSponsor : jfrakes@xxxxxxxxxxx  +1.206-355-0230
Seattle +1.213-925-5206 Los Angeles 

-------------
Jothan Frakes, Sr. Account Executive
Oversee.net / Domain Sponsor
Jfrakes@xxxxxxxxxxx
213 925 5206 / 206 355 0230 Cel

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Tuesday, July 24, 2007 09:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
To:     Jay Westerdal; Alan Greenberg; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject:        RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Collecting Facts

The press release does make a distinction between tasting and kiting,
and it is important to keep them differentiated because not all tasting
is kiting.  

Hopefully we will find stats to show how much of tasting is actually
kiting, but I think those stats are actually impossible because the
kiters use multiple registrar accreditations and identities to do their
work.  I have seen plenty of anecdotal evidence and reporting, showing
cases of kiting have been found by Verisign informally and alleged by a
few brand owners in court.  Anyone with any info is encouraged to
provide.

Mike Rodenbaugh


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jay Westerdal
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:39 PM
To: 'Alan Greenberg'; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Collecting Facts

I just used the Math they provided.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:03 PM
To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Collecting Facts

Jay, you will be glad to hear that you are one of the experts they quote
in http://www.cadna.org/prepared-statement-july-24.html.

That document also differentiates between kiting and tasting, and
important distinction that the press release does not bother to address,
but rather seems to treat all tasted domains as kited.

For the record, where did you get the numbers $10-12.50 from?

Alan

At 24/07/2007 02:28 PM, Jay Westerdal wrote:
>So the average Kited site is bring in $10 - $12.50 a year?
>Why not register the domain for $6 then?
>
>Perhaps $5 - $20 Million a year. But I think that report is bogus and 
>is just making up facts. I want to see some real stats and not made up 
>facts.