<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Collecting Facts
- To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Collecting Facts
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 06:12:52 -0700
<html><body>I agree Bruce, in most part. Some statistics on names that are
repeatedly re-registered (volume, timeframe) may be interesting, but there is
no way to determine motives and we shouldn't try to charactize the data. I
would just hope that we don't spend a lot of time on this aspect.<BR><BR>Tim<BR>
<div ><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px
solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE:
[gnso-dt-wg] Collecting Facts<BR>From: "Bruce Tonkin"
<Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Thu, July 26, 2007 6:53
am<BR>To: <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx><BR><BR>Hello All,<BR><BR><BR>> If a
name is "re-registered" in one month, 3 months, 6 months <BR>> or one
year<BR>> after the initial registration (and deletion after 5 days),
<BR>> how can you call<BR>> that "kiting"? I think Jothan's comment
earlier today was <BR>> very helpful in<BR>> drawing the distinction
between "kiting" and tasting. See<BR>> <A
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dt-wg/msg00031.html";
target=_blank>http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dt-wg/msg00031.html</A>. We
should be<BR>> distinguishing between the "intent not to pay" ("kiting") vs
<BR>> "reviewing the<BR>> suitability of a domain name" ("tasting"), and
t!
hen looking <BR>> for specific<BR>> facts and research on how the five
day add grace period may <BR>> or may not be<BR>> contributing to
abuse.<BR>> <BR><BR>Note on the topic of "tasting" - I can imagine that you
could "sample" a<BR>domain name at a certain "sample interval", and then keep
the name if it<BR>has some value at the time of sampling.<BR><BR>E.g I could
create the domain name "icannhasgreatpolicy.com". I could<BR>then cancel the
name if it doesn't get any traffic within 5 days. I<BR>could then decide to
re-register it every day, week, month, year etc<BR>depending on what sampling
interval I choose to use. Hopefully one day<BR>the name will have
value.<BR><BR>Note that a particular domain name may be sampled by more than
one<BR>party. And the sampling interval could be quite short - in fact as
the<BR>zonefile is published - some actors in the market could have a
business<BR>model to simply sample everything another party rejects - on the
basis<BR>t!
hat the first party generally has good judgement in picking good names
,<BR>and the second party is better at monetising a particular name.<BR><BR>The
number of variables becomes quite complex to determine the<BR>motivations of
the registrant. You could certainly analyse a set of<BR>names over a period of
time - e.g a sample size of several thousand<BR>randomly selected names that
were registered and deleted within 5 days,<BR>and then track how often each of
these names is registered over a period<BR>of time e.g 3 months. You might find
that in a particular sample of a<BR>thousand names, 10 names are registered
more than once over a 6 month<BR>period, and 2 name were registered up to ten
times. I don't know what<BR>the stats actually are - but at least some basic
statistical analysis<BR>could inform the GNSO on the size of the
problem.<BR><BR>What is also not clear is what the problem actually
is.<BR><BR>Possible problems are:<BR><BR>(1) As so many names are being
sampled, potential registrants are<BR>finding it hard to register their
preferred!
name. This could be<BR>determined by selecting a sample size of names that
were registered and<BR>deleted within the 5 day period, and then correlating
this data with the<BR>number of check operations done on the names within the 5
day period.<BR><BR>(2) Many of the names being registered are being used for
possible<BR>trademark infringement. This could be determined by selecting a
sample<BR>size of names that were registered and deleted within the 5 day
period,<BR>and then comparing the names with a database of trademarks (e.g
USA<BR>trademark office). You might want to identify direct matches
(e.g<BR>check for icann), and also potentially common misspellings (e.g
check<BR>for icnan). <BR><BR>(3) Many names are being repeatedly registered and
deleted - leading to<BR>possible stability issues, and potentially escaping
payment (e.g<BR>kiting). This could be determined by selecting a sample size of
names<BR>that were registered and deleted within the 5 day period, and monito!
ring<BR>those names over a longer period - e.g 30 days, 60 days, 90 da
ys etc.<BR>Identify how many names are re-registered and at what
frequency.<BR><BR>Rather than focus on the motivations of the registrant - it
is probably<BR>better to focus on the actual statistics of the activity, which
may help<BR>identify the problem, and then determine what policy actions may
be<BR>necessary.<BR><BR>So far the only real statistics I have seen relate to
aggregate numbers<BR>of names that are deleted within 5 days, but not the next
level of data<BR>as described in the three potential scenarios
above.<BR><BR>Regards<BR>Bruce
Tonkin<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|