response to RFI

[Tony Finch <dot@xxxxxxxx>]

1. I am a non-commercial Internet user - a postmaster for the University
of Cambridge (UK).

2. I do not believe any legitimate organization benefits from domain
tasting.

3. Internet users are disadvantaged by criminal or borderline-fraudulent
activity related to domain tasting (especially spam & phishing that uses
throwaway domains) and by junk results from search engines. IP owners
suffer from typo-squatting. Registrars and registries have to implement
wastefully over-specified infrastructure to cope with the volume of junk
registrations and deletions.

4. Domain tasting affects the security of the Internet indirectly by
making it easier for criminals to hide behind throwaway domains. It makes
effective competition between registries harder, by artificially making it
harder to provide the service.

5. I have not deleted a domain during the AGP.

6. I have had problems from domain tasing in my anti-spam and anti-phish
efforts - it is difficult to use domain names in blacklists because most
of them are thrown away after being used - and by junk results from search
engines.

10. I think suggestion A or B would substantially reduce domain tasting.
I'm less happy with C - though it attacks the registrars that support
tasting it leaves room for a significant churn of junk domains registered
via the large registrars.

11. Free domains encourage tasting.

12. I am opposed to offering domain registrations at no cost to the
registrant.

13. If the current $0.20 transaction fee is enough to substantially reduce
tasting then that is sufficient. If it is not, the minimum registration
fee should be larger. It's probably necessary to try this out in the real
world and revise the minimum fees if tasting continues.

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch  <dot@xxxxxxxx>  http://dotat.at/
IRISH SEA: SOUTHERLY, BACKING NORTHEASTERLY FOR A TIME, 3 OR 4. SLIGHT OR
MODERATE. SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD, OCCASIONALLY POOR.