response to RFI
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.