ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-rap-dt]


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

Re: [gnso-rap-dt] Feedback on front running questions

  • To: George Kirikos <icann+rap@xxxxxxxx>, "gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-rap-dt] Feedback on front running questions
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 12:58:44 -0700

George, please find feedback from Ben Edelman to your question below.

Best regards,

Marika

>From Ben Edelman:

I don't think it's desirable to post the list of the specific domains I 
checked.  Posting that list might prevent or undermine usage of a similar 
testing strategy in the future.  I was quite aware of the concern George 
identified, as to specifying domains of sufficient value to provoke 
front-running, if front-running is occurring.  The third paragraph of my report 
explains the methodology I chose to identify suitable registrations - English 
word combinations, of reasonable length, of plausible value.


On 8/31/09 10:30 PM, "George Kirikos" <icann+rap@xxxxxxxx> wrote:



As per my prior email:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-rap-dt/msg00308.html

I'd still appreciate a list of the domain names he attempted to
register, to see if they were "worthy" of being registered, i.e. their
quality.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Marika Konings<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Please find below the response received from Ben Edelman to the follow-up
> questions posed by members of the RAP WG. Note that the report was
> commissioned by the ICANN compliance department.
>
> With best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> From: Ben Edelman [mailto:ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 7:19 PM
> To: 'Stacy Burnette'
> Subject: RE: Questions on front running study
>
> Thanks for the further questions.
>
> Attached is the list of URLs where domain availability was checked.  There
> are fewer than 600 entries because some URLs were checked repeatedly,
> consistent with the methodology detailed in my report.
>
> To Greg's second question: As I mentioned in my prior message, I did not
> have occasion to classify the particulars of each URL where I checked domain
> availability.  So I don't know the answer to that question.  My tests began
> at the URLs listed in the attachment.  Then, as detailed in my methodology,
> I used a domain registration or search link or form on (or linked from) each
> page to check the availability of a test domain on each of the test URLs.
>
> On Greg's third question: Checking the registry would have been a fine
> alternative to DNS queries.  As Greg suggests, checking the registry would
> offer certain benefits.  With INFO as well as COM and NET, I'd need to run
> several kinds of checks, but it's certainly doable.  However, the
> methodology I used was the methodology described in my report, not the
> alternative Greg suggests.
>
> I'll let ICANN speak to the question of what part of ICANN requested the
> report.
>




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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy