ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Response to August 10 RFI

  • To: rfi-domaintasting@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Response to August 10 RFI
  • From: "Marcus Faure" <marcus.faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:49:38 +0200 (CEST)


please consider my response below.

Marcus Faure
CORE Council of Registrars



we are d) and also e) to the extent that we are the registry operator
of .museum and .cat and proposed registry operator for .berlin


The only party benefitting from domain tasting are commercial
institutions that abuse the 5-day-add-grace period to register names
for free and evaluate their potential for free. It may be
registrars (d), though some of the players are "only" regular internet
companies that are not in your list of categories


Everyone who wants to register a domain name is directly affected as
the namespace is narrowed down, that is category a, b, c, f, g, h, i. 
c and g are less affected as they can challange the registration, but
they would have to go through an otherwise unnessary
process. Registrars are affected as a densely populated space makes it
harder to sell domain names.
At first sight, registries are affected as the tasters tend to hammer
the registries with zillions of add requests, but as they use it as an
excuse to increase their pricing, and ICANN has for some reason
accepted that excuse, they really benefit from tasting. This can be
proven by the fact that registries are under the current agreement
already in a position to impose charges for abusive behaviour. With
the glorious exception of PIR nobody went down that road. As soon as
tasting does not increase the number of paid domains any more, we can
be sure that the registries realize they are able to charge for
abusive requests, however you will hear that statement only behind
closed doors.


Working registries are vital for the functionality of the
internet. Domain tasting is practically a DDOS attack against the
registry which they have to fight with otherwise unnessary hardware
and manpower investments.


CORE has a few AGP deletions. None of the CORE members is in the
business of tasting. However, we have not asked for feedback on this
service, so we can only speculate that it was for the originally
intended reason, correction of typographic errors.


Generally due to the narrowed domain space which drives away
business. As CORE discourages tasting, it is likely that some
organizations did not become CORE members but rather went to
tasting-friendly organizations


While I support a small fee for AGP deletions as in the B) model, it
is not understandable why it should be forwarded to ICANN. ICANN will not
ever provide any kind of support for a domain that is deleted during AGP. I
therefore suggest a small fee that the registry may charge. 20c as a
flat fee might not work for all registries. It could also be a fraction like
10/365 of the actual registration price, or 20/365 if the first is
considered to be insignificant. This may be fine-tuned based on the
findings of its effectiveness once implemented and tested for some time.


A) registrants who mistype a name would have to fully pay for it
B) registrants who mistype a name would have to partially pay for it,
   or the registrar would have to swallaw the fee. It is not likely
   that a registrar forwards a fee of 20 cent, so some will charge a
   small fee of one or a few dollars while other pay for typos themselves.
C) will not affect registrant and registries who are not in the
   tasting business


A) will eliminate tasting almost completely
B) will greatly reduce tasting
C) will partially reduce tasting


In principal I support model B) but with the changes suggested in 7.
While A) while eliminate tasting almost completely, B) will have nearly the
same effect while still allowing to correct typos, which was the
initial intention, so it is a best of both worlds. While C) is a good
step and works partially, depending on your size it will still allow
you a certain degree of tasting.


This depends on the smallprint. If you restrict the number of domains per
registrant, you would make tasting harder, though with enough energy
you will still be able to taste.


It may make sense in special situations, especially for sTLDs. There
should be reasonable restrictions against tasting.


see 10 and 12


This is best provided by the registries. Looking at the number of AGP
deletions compared to actual add requests will give you a very good


CORE is working in the domain industry since its inception ten years
ago. Many of CORE staff and excom members are highly qualified to
support ICANN in this process.


None other than 7.

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy