ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Actual Informal Statistics for .BIZ on Tasting

  • To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Actual Informal Statistics for .BIZ on Tasting
  • From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:49:41 -0400


I don't have this information readily available.  Will try to get this
detail in the next few weeks.

We have very elaborate data retention, archiving and escrow systems in
place and have all of this data from the beginning of the launch of biz.
For a reputable established registry operator, the cost of this really
should not be an issue.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & Business Development 

NeuStar, Inc. 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:40 AM
To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Actual Informal Statistics for .BIZ on Tasting

Thanks Jeff. Very helpful. Another analysis from Registries that would
1. What are the data retention and escrow requirements (ICANN and
otherwise) for registries with regards to names that are registered,
even for a few days? Do registries need to archive that data for a
period of time - days, months, years? Does that data need to be escrowed
for a period of time?
2. If yes to either or both retention and escrow, how would the storage
needs of those requirements affect registries if/when millions of names
are registered and deleted as they are with tasting activities? How does
that differ between a thin registry (VeriSign for example) and a thick
registry (NeuStar, Afilias, etc.)?

3. What is the cost affect of those storage needs and how might that
factor into the wholesale price of registrations, renewals, and
transfers overall? How much of the wholesale price is attributable to,
or will be attributable to, supporting tasting activities?

I think it is valid to ask and understand what additional costs, if any,
we will all be paying to continue to support this activity. Based on the
data that Olof and Patrick put together and charted, it is clear that
tasting is on a continued up trend. It is not burning out as some have
been claiming will happen, since 2005. What are we, or what we will, all
be paying to support this activity, and what are benefits to us all (not
just the tasters) that justifies those additional costs, if any?


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-dt-wg] Actual Informal Statistics for .BIZ on Tasting
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, July 26, 2007 7:50 am
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>,  "Patrick Jones"
Cc: <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>

I have to agree with Tim here re Kiting.
Here are some informal stats for .biz
In .biz, there were between 20,000 - 45,000 domain names per month that
were registered and deleted between January and June 2007 (for a total
of approximately 195,000 domains).  
Of that that 195,000 domains:
*         183,935 names were not re-registered and deleted.  In other
words, they could have been re-registered on a permanent basis, but not
tasted again.
*         402 names were deleted and re-registered more than 10 times
total during that 6 month period (**probable but not confirmed kiting)
*         1503 names were deleted or re-registered 4 to 10 times total
during that 6 month period (*possible kiting, but not probable)
*         9286 names were deleted or re-registered 2 or 3 times total
during that 6 month period (but that may not have been consecutively)
Therefore, 0.21% of the total tasted names were "probable" kiting.  Even
taking into account the names that were possibly "kiting", that only
brings the percentage up to 0.98%.
So, at least for .biz, "kiting" is really a non-issue.  I suspect you
will find similar results from other registries.  
We would have to do a deeper analysis to see whether (i) the
re-registrations were consecutive and (ii) whether they eventually
became permanent registrations to more accurately assess whether the
numbers above were actual kiting, but this should clear up some
Hopefully, other registries will follow suit.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & Business Development 
NeuStar, Inc. 

From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 10:43 PM
To: Patrick Jones
Cc: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Collecting Facts

Kiting is a sympton of tasting, plain and simple. Some small percentage
of the million or more names a registrar may taste (for themselves or
their client) will get some traffic. That registrar or client will want
to taste those again to verify/recheck the results. I highly doubt any
of the so called kiters really believe or intend that they can kite name


Other names may appear to be kited but it is just that two or more
registrars may be getting their data on names to taste from the same or
similar sources. So it will look like the name is being kited but that
is not the actual intent. That could conceivably happen even within a
registrar group where the left hand isn't necessarily aware of what the
right hand is doing. There really isn't any need to be concerned with
filtering out names already tasted by one of your other registrars
because it doesn't cost anything to do it.


All the data in the world isn't going to help you discern the
difference. My point is that kiting is possible because tasting is
possible. The real problems that our customers complain about, or that
IP interests are concerned about occur because of the volume of tasting
due to the fact that its free. There is no incentive to curb it, filter
it, be thoughtful about it, etc. because it is entirely free no matter
what the volume.


Spending a lot of time debating kiting and digging up so called kiting
stats (that won't really tell you anything concrete anyway) should only
be considered *IF* it is decided that tasting is an Okay thing and
should be allowed to continue. Then, and only then, does it make it any
sense to debate and hash out other activities that can only occur if
tasting is allowed to continue as is.


IMHO, tasting isn't bad for our industry because of kiting. Kiting is
just another example of why tasting is bad for our industry.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Collecting Facts
From: "Patrick Jones" <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, July 25, 2007 4:35 pm
To: <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>

I suspect that you are asking for information that can only be provided
the registries - this would be specialized data and it is not something
ICANN staff has.

If a name is "re-registered" in one month, 3 months, 6 months or one
after the initial registration (and deletion after 5 days), how can you
that "kiting"? I think Jothan's comment earlier today was very helpful
drawing the distinction between "kiting" and tasting. See
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dt-wg/msg00031.html. We should be
distinguishing between the "intent not to pay! " ("kiting") vs
"reviewing the
suitability of a domain name" ("tasting"), and then looking for specific
facts and research on how the five day add grace period may or may not
contributing to abuse.


Patrick L. Jones
Registry Liaison Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: +1 310 301 3861
Fax: +1 310 823 8649

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann! .org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 2:18 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Paul Stahura; Danny Younger; Tim Ruiz;
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Collecting Facts

I would say the data would be more relevant without restrictions of
"re-registered more than say 3 times, each time immediately prior to the
last" -- if it is done twice by related parties then I would consider it
kiting, and it need not be necessarily immediate since I imagine some of
the kiters are smart enough to wait and re-regis! ter after some time. I
would like to know how many domains have been re-registered more than
once and dropped during AGP, by any related registrar, within a year.
Of course it is tough to define 'related registrar' and so maybe the
best we can do is have the raw number of domains dropped in AGP and
re-registered within another 5 days, one month, 3 mos., 6 mos. and one
year? That wouldn't necessarily prove that all of those domains were
kited, but may be useful info at least to show the maximum extent of

Is this something ICANN Staff could possibly do, or would we need
registries to provide custom data?

Mike Rodenbaugh

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:! owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 8:46 AM
To: Paul Stahura; Danny Younger; Tim Ruiz; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Collecting Facts

I will see if I can dig up some stats for NeuStar....recognizing of
course the amount of tasting in .biz is pretty much insignificant at
this point compared to .com.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development 

NeuStar, Inc. 

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy