In response to Tony Cambridge University 14th Aug

["Darren - Full-Effect.com" <darren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would like to submit 2 responses to this debate if i may, the first
one gives my reply to someone who has already commented.
Helpful to have counter-comments. And i also submit my own response to
the debate.
(Word Use: "ppc parked website" refers to a domain soley caught for
parking and displaying pay per click (ppc) advertising).
All of my points cross reference Tony's below mine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
1. I am a commercial Internet User - Registrant.
2.
3. a) If a criminal tastes a domain (i.e: uses the 5 day grace period)
he is still leaving a footprint o
n the domain (whois), whether he was to do that or register a new
available domain (i.e: jzsdjjffjsd.com). 
b) If domain tasting did not exist, internet businesses would still
register domains for ppc parking anyway 
(as they have done before tasting was available anyway), so you'd still
suffer from typo-squatting
c) If Registrars dont offer domain tasting, they wont suffer from
wastefully over-specified junk registrations.
Thos who do offer domain tasting are making that much money from it, is
is covering their infrastructure, 
otherwise they wouldnt offer domain tasting.
4. Whether a criminal or illegitamite business had to pay for a domain
registration or not 
(grace period vs no grace period) they would still obtain a domain for
illegal activity.
Therefore the point of criminals using domains for illegal activities,
should be the
actual issue we should be focusing on instead? Statistically, criminals
spam from hijacked/hacked
websites & users computers anyway, rather than risk registering a domain
name and leaving 
behind a bigger paper trail.
b) Effective competition? The only time 2 registrars would be in
competition, is to register the same domain,
therefore that would be for the purpose of ppc parking? which is what
you appose?
5. 
6. Same as number 4 above, most spamming is done via compromised servers
and users computers.
b) "Junk results from search engines".... This is my biggest argument
for registering domains that are 
due to be deleted, if they werent registered, all search results from
search engines would end in a 
page cannot be found error, since nearly all deleted domains are
re-registered, all search
results end in a page full of relevant links. Its then up to the user to
follow a link. On another note
99% of the ppc links are to relevant legitamite websites. Its is helping
to knit the internet together. 
(i.e: A user searching for "tropical holiday", is always going to end up
on a travel website, whether
clicking on a ppc parked website or not), otherwise the ammount of dead
links would be more noticable.
10. Assuming that, by stopping domain tasting, would prevent junk
domains being registered, is like saying
by making it illegal to take drugs, will stop people taking them.
11. Tasting is the art of testing a domain for its traffic values,
however, businesses were still registering deleted
domains years before domain tasting was available anyway. By saying the
volume of registering deleted 
domains has rose significantly since domain tasting was available, i
would also state, please take user/business
inflation into account, the explosion of new users/businesses onto the
internet in recent years also plays 
a part in the large volume of registered domains.

Thank you
Darren Williams
Northeast England.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
http://forum.icann.org/lists/rfi-domaintasting/msg00003.html
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