With regard to the current ALAC meeting, and the Proposed Guide to At-Large Structures Application evaluation, I have some concerns. 1) This document lacks any real substance or clarity in the area of what is desired of future ALSs. 2) There is no substantial improvement over the previous version. 3) There has not been substantial deliberation over the issues, rather issues are glossed over and accepted or changed as insignificantly as they have been proposed. 4) Too much time has been spent on procedural issues that could have been better focused on substance. I am not trying to stand in the way of progress, rather I am convinced that not much progress has been made in the way of making a reformed application process of new ALSs. In preparing for future issues such as this, I would suggest more time and energy be used for making a quality document and clear up issues related to these documents. Unfortunately there has been so much going on that some things fall through the cracks. I'm afraid that this document is one which has been neglected. -Randy Glass A@L
RJGlass | America@Large ha scritto:
I am not trying to stand in the way of progress, rather I am convinced that not much progress has been made in the way of making a reformed application process of new ALSs. In preparing for future issues such as this, I would suggest more time and energy be used for making a quality document and clear up issues related to these documents. Unfortunately there has been so much going on that some things fall through the cracks. I'm afraid that this document is one which has been neglected.
I think that the text of a document like that would better be drafted by a smaller working group of volunteers (gathering all those who have strong opinions on the matter) and only submitted to the ALAC for approval once controversial points have been cleared and substantial consensus has been built in advance. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
That would certainly be a better process... On 6/29/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
RJGlass | America@Large ha scritto:
I am not trying to stand in the way of progress, rather I am convinced that not much progress has been made in the way of making a reformed application process of new ALSs. In preparing for future issues such as this, I would suggest more time and energy be used for making a quality document and clear up issues related to these documents. Unfortunately there has been so much going on that some things fall through the cracks. I'm afraid that this document is one which has been neglected.
I think that the text of a document like that would better be drafted by a smaller working group of volunteers (gathering all those who have strong opinions on the matter) and only submitted to the ALAC for approval once controversial points have been cleared and substantial consensus has been built in advance. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
Alan Greenberg posted the following comment on 27 June: "The ALAC requests that ICANN consider charging registrars part or all of the $0.22 fee for names deleted during the AGP." http://forum.icann.org/lists/budget-0708/msg00001.html Sorry to say, that I cannot find the minutes of the meeting in which this decision was agreed upon, nor can I find a recording of the San Juan meeting sessions. How did the ALAC arrive at this particular recommendation without the benefit of any on-list discussion whatsoever? What input did the RALOs have into the endorsement of this one specific recommendation? Why were other viable options not endorsed? Is this an authorized statement? If so, why wasn't it issued by the chair? Some answers would be appreciated. ____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
Good point, Danny, In San Juan Elliott Noss (sp?) from TuCows made the point that this issue wasn't discussed at all by the Board as something that shouldn't be done. So, it really is questionable that this was brought up for public debate, as it certainly should have been. Darlene ________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Danny Younger Sent: Sat 7/7/2007 1:48 PM To: At-Large Worldwide; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] Budget provisions relating to Domain Tasting Alan Greenberg posted the following comment on 27 June: "The ALAC requests that ICANN consider charging registrars part or all of the $0.22 fee for names deleted during the AGP." http://forum.icann.org/lists/budget-0708/msg00001.html Sorry to say, that I cannot find the minutes of the meeting in which this decision was agreed upon, nor can I find a recording of the San Juan meeting sessions. How did the ALAC arrive at this particular recommendation without the benefit of any on-list discussion whatsoever? What input did the RALOs have into the endorsement of this one specific recommendation? Why were other viable options not endorsed? Is this an authorized statement? If so, why wasn't it issued by the chair? Some answers would be appreciated. ____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org <http://www.alac.icann.org/> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org <http://www.icannalac.org/>
As a registrant, when someone charges me more fees, that someone should be accountable and have some reason for doing such. Randy Glass A@L On 7/7/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Alan Greenberg posted the following comment on 27 June:
"The ALAC requests that ICANN consider charging registrars part or all of the $0.22 fee for names deleted during the AGP."
http://forum.icann.org/lists/budget-0708/msg00001.html
Sorry to say, that I cannot find the minutes of the meeting in which this decision was agreed upon, nor can I find a recording of the San Juan meeting sessions.
How did the ALAC arrive at this particular recommendation without the benefit of any on-list discussion whatsoever? What input did the RALOs have into the endorsement of this one specific recommendation? Why were other viable options not endorsed?
Is this an authorized statement? If so, why wasn't it issued by the chair?
Some answers would be appreciated.
____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
As a registrant, when someone charges me more fees, that someone should be accountable and have some reason for doing such.
"The ALAC requests that ICANN consider charging registrars part or all of the $0.22 fee for names deleted during the AGP."
This is to get rid of domain kiting/tasting. I happen to agree that it's a good idea, but I also agree that it hasn't been sufficiently debated to be presented as ALAC's position. R's, John
The kiting/tasting issue can be resolved by getting rid of the AGP, this was a bad idea from the beginning. The handful of people who made it knew this would happen and did it anyway. For the record, I am opposed to the increasing price of domains. Not opposed to ICANN charging the fee for the deletions during the AGP. So, what ICANN is saying is that a 22cent domain will stop kiting and tasting?? That is ridiculous. This action needs to be adequately discussed. Randy Glass A@L On 7/7/07, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
As a registrant, when someone charges me more fees, that someone should be accountable and have some reason for doing such.
"The ALAC requests that ICANN consider charging registrars part or all of the $0.22 fee for names deleted during the AGP."
This is to get rid of domain kiting/tasting.
I happen to agree that it's a good idea, but I also agree that it hasn't been sufficiently debated to be presented as ALAC's position.
R's, John
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
The ICANN Staff Issues report on Domain Tasting raised a number of questions. In view of these questions the GNSO Council decided to defer the initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) until such time as a "small ad-hoc group of GNSO representatives" reported back with their findings. The ICANN Staff questions are: 1. Who benefits from domain tasting, and who is harmed? 2. Who would benefit from cessation of the practice and who would be harmed? 3. How are registry operators being affected by domain tasting? 4. How are registrars being affected by domain tasting? 5. How are registrants being affected by domain tasting? 6. Are there different categories of registrants affected differently? 7. What enforceable rules could be applied toward domain tasting activity? 8. What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing limitations, guidelines or restrictions on registrars use of the AGP? 9. What would be the impact (positive or negative) on registries, registrars, and registrants of eliminating the AGP? Frankly, fact-finding is supposed to be the reponsibility of the ALAC who under the bylaws is charged with reporting "their findings and recommendations to the Board". I would recommend that if the ALAC really cares about this issue that the above questions be answered in an ALAC submission to the GNSO (along with any other pertinent findings that may be of use to the council). ____________________________________________________________________________________ Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
The small unrefundable fee .ORG (PIR) charges eliminated the (bulk of the) problems they faced as a result of tasting on .org domains. It is hoped that this $0.22 measure would have similar effect. It's worth the try, but it probably doesnt go far enough. The At-Large position should be to support this budgetary measure, and also to investigate other policy options, including removing the AGP option entirely. More important to me is addressing the "tasting" that occurs during the drop period. We should not neglect this dimension of tasting practices. The arguments presented from the floor as to why AGP is still necessary and useful seemed terribly weak. They presented abuse scenarios as a basis to maintain AGP... i.e. a Registrar being hacked and domains purchased under it's name... Such scenario should be the basis for invoking criminal legal system, and could be cause for exceptions to process/refund as opposed to an automatic right of the registrar to return a domain. I do agree with Randy that pricing on domains should not be going up. The gentleman from Tucows was very much on the mark. The arguments of inflation etc were specious. Processing power, bandwidth, communications/telecom expenses should all be going down down down. The small increase may seem trivial, but the principle is more important. -- MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
Re: The small increase may seem trivial, but the principle is more important. The price increase (which won't go into effect until October 15) is not trivial -- registrars are already raising their prices in anticipation of the price increase: "AIT Domains says that under the promotion all domain names will cost $6.49 until July 6. However, due to recently announced price increases from ICANN, AIT Domains says it's being forced to raise its prices. Rates are currently scheduled to go up to $8.49 per registration year on July 9." http://www.thewhir.com/marketwatch/070307_AIT_Holds_Fourth_of_July_Special.c... What's more important than all of this is the issue of bad decision-making on the part of the unaccountable ICANN Board. The Internet community has no way of "throwing the bums out" because ICANN remains accountable to no one. Until this problem is solved it really doesn't much matter what the community consensus is on the AGP or anything else... ICANN remains free to ignore the voice of the people. Presently, ICANN profits from the consequences of domain tasting... the more names that are tasted, the more names that will eventually be registered as some of these names can successfully be monetized. Profits for the registries, profits for the registrars, profits for ICANN... there were about 16 million new registrations last year (a good chunk of them the direct result of tasting activities). Don't expect to prevail on this issue without putting up a spectacular fight and screaming for action at every opportunity -- convincing a corporation to kill a lucrative cash cow can only be an uphill battle. ____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
The price increase you are talking about is the one driven by the registries. If anything, this increase is partly to offset costs incurred because of domain tasting. If your arguments are valid, domain tasting is making money for the registries and helping to keep down the cost of registrations. Note that I am not agreeing or disagreeing on the reasonableness of the price increases, or how responsible the ICANN Board is. But I would like to focus on one issue at a time so that perhaps we can come to closure. Raising all of ICANN's ills in this one discussion is not likely productive. Call it naive, but I actually do expect to prevail on this issue despite the possible ills of the organizations involved. Alan At 08/07/2007 03:26 PM, you wrote:
Re: The small increase may seem trivial, but the principle is more important.
The price increase (which won't go into effect until October 15) is not trivial -- registrars are already raising their prices in anticipation of the price increase:
"AIT Domains says that under the promotion all domain names will cost $6.49 until July 6. However, due to recently announced price increases from ICANN, AIT Domains says it's being forced to raise its prices. Rates are currently scheduled to go up to $8.49 per registration year on July 9."
http://www.thewhir.com/marketwatch/070307_AIT_Holds_Fourth_of_July_Special.c...
What's more important than all of this is the issue of bad decision-making on the part of the unaccountable ICANN Board. The Internet community has no way of "throwing the bums out" because ICANN remains accountable to no one.
Until this problem is solved it really doesn't much matter what the community consensus is on the AGP or anything else... ICANN remains free to ignore the voice of the people.
Presently, ICANN profits from the consequences of domain tasting... the more names that are tasted, the more names that will eventually be registered as some of these names can successfully be monetized. Profits for the registries, profits for the registrars, profits for ICANN... there were about 16 million new registrations last year (a good chunk of them the direct result of tasting activities).
Don't expect to prevail on this issue without putting up a spectacular fight and screaming for action at every opportunity -- convincing a corporation to kill a lucrative cash cow can only be an uphill battle.
____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
First of all, I am sure that Alan knows about the details of Domain Tasting, since in the ALAC mailing lists this problem has been rased since months, an issue report has been requested by ALAC, and Alan is in the GNSO team who is in charge for further fact finding. This said, the fact that domain tasting bring an increase in "regular" registrations is exactly the evidence brought by domainers and domain tasters/kiters to justify the practice. It is at least odd that the same phenomenon is brought up in this discussion. Being paranoiac by nature, I tend to pay attention to coincidences. Last but not least, the price increase is orthogonal to this issue, as it comes from the 7% increase that registries (not ICANN!) will apply. This increase accounts for a grand total of .42 USD, "autrement dit" 42 cents of US$. It is again odd that a raise of full $2.00 can be justified in this way, and it is at least suspicious that a long time militant omits to remark that the issues are separated and that a raise of such extent is not justified. Incidentally, relevant ICANN staff in copy to craft appropriate follow up to AIT Domains, thanks Danny for pointing out media clip. Regards, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: 08 July 2007 21:27 To: Michael Maranda; At-Large Worldwide; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Budget provisions relating to DomainTasting
Re: The small increase may seem trivial, but the principle is more important.
The price increase (which won't go into effect until October 15) is not trivial -- registrars are already raising their prices in anticipation of the price increase:
"AIT Domains says that under the promotion all domain names will cost $6.49 until July 6. However, due to recently announced price increases from ICANN, AIT Domains says it's being forced to raise its prices. Rates are currently scheduled to go up to $8.49 per registration year on July 9."
http://www.thewhir.com/marketwatch/070307_AIT_Holds_Fourth_of_ July_Special.cfm
What's more important than all of this is the issue of bad decision-making on the part of the unaccountable ICANN Board. The Internet community has no way of "throwing the bums out" because ICANN remains accountable to no one.
Until this problem is solved it really doesn't much matter what the community consensus is on the AGP or anything else... ICANN remains free to ignore the voice of the people.
Presently, ICANN profits from the consequences of domain tasting... the more names that are tasted, the more names that will eventually be registered as some of these names can successfully be monetized. Profits for the registries, profits for the registrars, profits for ICANN... there were about 16 million new registrations last year (a good chunk of them the direct result of tasting activities).
Don't expect to prevail on this issue without putting up a spectacular fight and screaming for action at every opportunity -- convincing a corporation to kill a lucrative cash cow can only be an uphill battle.
______________________________________________________________ ______________________Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Re: "It is again odd that a raise of full $2.00 can be justified in this way." Sorry, but why do you think that this is odd? Board members know the Redemption Grace Period Fee charged by Registries is set at $40, and that many registrars will charge well in excess of 4X markup -- eNom is at $160, while some hosting companies charge as much as $260. Registrar markup of the 42 cent fee increase is to be expected. A 4X markup would raise a registrar price by $1.68, and higher markups could easily raise it over $2.00. Was the Board so blinded to reality that they thought that registrars would either eat or simply pass along the 42 cents? Markup is part of normal business. You shouldn't find it odd. What you should find odd is the miserable justifications that were given by Board members for screwing the public with an unjustified price increase. --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
First of all, I am sure that Alan knows about the details of Domain Tasting, since in the ALAC mailing lists this problem has been rased since months, an issue report has been requested by ALAC, and Alan is in the GNSO team who is in charge for further fact finding.
This said, the fact that domain tasting bring an increase in "regular" registrations is exactly the evidence brought by domainers and domain tasters/kiters to justify the practice. It is at least odd that the same phenomenon is brought up in this discussion. Being paranoiac by nature, I tend to pay attention to coincidences.
Last but not least, the price increase is orthogonal to this issue, as it comes from the 7% increase that registries (not ICANN!) will apply. This increase accounts for a grand total of .42 USD, "autrement dit" 42 cents of US$. It is again odd that a raise of full $2.00 can be justified in this way, and it is at least suspicious that a long time militant omits to remark that the issues are separated and that a raise of such extent is not justified.
Incidentally, relevant ICANN staff in copy to craft appropriate follow up to AIT Domains, thanks Danny for pointing out media clip.
Regards, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: 08 July 2007 21:27 To: Michael Maranda; At-Large Worldwide; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Budget provisions relating to DomainTasting
Re: The small increase may seem trivial, but the principle is more important.
The price increase (which won't go into effect until October 15) is not trivial -- registrars are already raising their prices in anticipation of the price increase:
"AIT Domains says that under the promotion all domain names will cost $6.49 until July 6. However, due to recently announced price increases from ICANN, AIT Domains says it's being forced to raise its prices. Rates are currently scheduled to go up to $8.49 per registration year on July 9."
http://www.thewhir.com/marketwatch/070307_AIT_Holds_Fourth_of_
July_Special.cfm
What's more important than all of this is the
issue of bad
decision-making on the part of the unaccountable ICANN Board. The Internet community has no way of "throwing the bums out" because ICANN remains accountable to no one.
Until this problem is solved it really doesn't much matter what the community consensus is on the AGP or anything else... ICANN remains free to ignore the voice of the people.
Presently, ICANN profits from the consequences of domain tasting... the more names that are tasted, the more names that will eventually be registered as some of these names can successfully be monetized. Profits for the registries, profits for the registrars, profits for ICANN... there were about 16 million new registrations last year (a good chunk of them the direct result of tasting activities).
Don't expect to prevail on this issue without putting up a spectacular fight and screaming for action at every opportunity -- convincing a corporation to kill a lucrative cash cow can only be an uphill battle.
______________________________________________________________
______________________Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l
ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
ALAC
Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
____________________________________________________________________________________ The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php
No, what I find odd is the inqualifiable justification of a further $1.58 increase in pure profit blamed on an ICANN Board decision. I do not find odd that commercial companies do their business, I find odd that a self appointed champion of the user interests justifies an unjustifiable 31% increase in end user prices based on a 7% raw material prices. Anyway, I find it odd, but I wonder why I am not surprised. Regards Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: 09 July 2007 01:33 To: Roberto Gaetano; 'Michael Maranda'; 'At-Large Worldwide'; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: RE: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Budget provisions relating to DomainTasting
Re: "It is again odd that a raise of full $2.00 can be justified in this way."
Sorry, but why do you think that this is odd?
Board members know the Redemption Grace Period Fee charged by Registries is set at $40, and that many registrars will charge well in excess of 4X markup -- eNom is at $160, while some hosting companies charge as much as $260.
Registrar markup of the 42 cent fee increase is to be expected. A 4X markup would raise a registrar price by $1.68, and higher markups could easily raise it over $2.00.
Was the Board so blinded to reality that they thought that registrars would either eat or simply pass along the 42 cents? Markup is part of normal business. You shouldn't find it odd.
What you should find odd is the miserable justifications that were given by Board members for screwing the public with an unjustified price increase.
--- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
First of all, I am sure that Alan knows about the details of Domain Tasting, since in the ALAC mailing lists this problem has
been rased
since months, an issue report has been requested by ALAC, and Alan is in the GNSO team who is in charge for further fact finding.
This said, the fact that domain tasting bring an increase in "regular" registrations is exactly the evidence brought by domainers and domain tasters/kiters to justify the practice. It is at least odd that the same phenomenon is brought up in this discussion. Being paranoiac by nature, I tend to pay attention to coincidences.
Last but not least, the price increase is orthogonal to this issue, as it comes from the 7% increase that registries (not ICANN!) will apply. This increase accounts for a grand total of .42 USD, "autrement dit" 42 cents of US$. It is again odd that a raise of full $2.00 can be justified in this way, and it is at least suspicious that a long time militant omits to remark that the issues are separated and that a raise of such extent is not justified.
Incidentally, relevant ICANN staff in copy to craft appropriate follow up to AIT Domains, thanks Danny for pointing out media clip.
Regards, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: 08 July 2007 21:27 To: Michael Maranda; At-Large Worldwide; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Budget provisions relating to DomainTasting
Re: The small increase may seem trivial, but the principle is more important.
The price increase (which won't go into effect until October 15) is not trivial -- registrars are already raising their prices in anticipation of the price increase:
"AIT Domains says that under the promotion all domain names will cost $6.49 until July 6. However, due to recently announced price increases from ICANN, AIT Domains says it's being forced to raise its prices. Rates are currently scheduled to go up to $8.49 per registration year on July 9."
http://www.thewhir.com/marketwatch/070307_AIT_Holds_Fourth_of_
July_Special.cfm
What's more important than all of this is the
issue of bad
decision-making on the part of the unaccountable ICANN Board. The Internet community has no way of "throwing the bums out" because ICANN remains accountable to no one.
Until this problem is solved it really doesn't much matter what the community consensus is on the AGP or anything else... ICANN remains free to ignore the voice of the people.
Presently, ICANN profits from the consequences of domain tasting... the more names that are tasted, the more names that will eventually be registered as some of these names can successfully be monetized. Profits for the registries, profits for the registrars, profits for ICANN... there were about 16 million new registrations last year (a good chunk of them the direct result of tasting activities).
Don't expect to prevail on this issue without putting up a spectacular fight and screaming for action at every opportunity -- convincing a corporation to kill a lucrative cash cow can only be an uphill battle.
______________________________________________________________
______________________Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l
ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
ALAC
Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
______________________________________________________________ ______________________ The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php
Boy, you sure have a way of twisting words. No one is justifying a 31% increase, instead the reality of markups has been pointed out to you -- something you should have taken into account when you caved in to VeriSign and granted their price increase. The shame is yours. --- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
No, what I find odd is the inqualifiable justification of a further $1.58 increase in pure profit blamed on an ICANN Board decision.
I do not find odd that commercial companies do their business, I find odd that a self appointed champion of the user interests justifies an unjustifiable 31% increase in end user prices based on a 7% raw material prices.
Anyway, I find it odd, but I wonder why I am not surprised.
Regards Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: 09 July 2007 01:33 To: Roberto Gaetano; 'Michael Maranda'; 'At-Large Worldwide'; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: RE: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Budget provisions relating to DomainTasting
Re: "It is again odd that a raise of full $2.00 can be justified in this way."
Sorry, but why do you think that this is odd?
Board members know the Redemption Grace Period Fee charged by Registries is set at $40, and that many registrars will charge well in excess of 4X markup -- eNom is at $160, while some hosting companies charge as much as $260.
Registrar markup of the 42 cent fee increase is to be expected. A 4X markup would raise a registrar price by $1.68, and higher markups could easily raise it over $2.00.
Was the Board so blinded to reality that they thought that registrars would either eat or simply pass along the 42 cents? Markup is part of normal business. You shouldn't find it odd.
What you should find odd is the miserable justifications that were given by Board members for screwing the public with an unjustified price increase.
--- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
First of all, I am sure that Alan knows about
the details of Domain
Tasting, since in the ALAC mailing lists this problem has been rased since months, an issue report has been requested by ALAC, and Alan is in the GNSO team who is in charge for further fact finding.
This said, the fact that domain tasting bring an increase in "regular" registrations is exactly the evidence brought by domainers and domain tasters/kiters to justify the practice. It is at least odd that the same phenomenon is brought up in this discussion. Being paranoiac by nature, I tend to pay attention to coincidences.
Last but not least, the price increase is orthogonal to this issue, as it comes from the 7% increase that registries (not ICANN!) will apply. This increase accounts for a grand total of .42 USD, "autrement dit" 42 cents of US$. It is again odd that a raise of full $2.00 can be justified in this way, and it is at least suspicious that a long time militant omits to remark that the issues are separated and that a raise of such extent is not justified.
Incidentally, relevant ICANN staff in copy to craft appropriate follow up to AIT Domains, thanks Danny for pointing out media clip.
Regards, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: 08 July 2007 21:27 To: Michael Maranda; At-Large Worldwide; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Budget provisions relating to DomainTasting
Re: The small increase may seem trivial, but the principle is more important.
The price increase (which won't go into effect until October 15) is not trivial -- registrars are already raising their prices in anticipation of the price increase:
"AIT Domains says that under the promotion all domain names will cost $6.49 until July 6. However, due to recently announced price increases from ICANN, AIT Domains says it's being forced to raise its prices. Rates are currently scheduled to go up to $8.49 per registration year on July 9."
http://www.thewhir.com/marketwatch/070307_AIT_Holds_Fourth_of_
July_Special.cfm
What's more important than all of this is the
issue of bad
decision-making on the part of the unaccountable ICANN Board. The Internet community has no way of "throwing the bums out" because ICANN remains accountable to no one.
Until this problem is solved it really doesn't much matter what the community consensus is on the AGP or anything else... ICANN remains free to ignore the voice of the people.
Presently, ICANN profits from the consequences of domain tasting... the more names that are tasted, the more names that will eventually be registered as some of these names can successfully be monetized. Profits for the registries, profits for the registrars, profits for ICANN... there were about 16 million new registrations last year (a good chunk of
=== message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/
Danny Younger wrote:
Boy, you sure have a way of twisting words.
No one is justifying a 31% increase, instead the reality of markups has been pointed out to you -- something you should have taken into account when you caved in to VeriSign and granted their price increase.
OK, so I misunderstood, you do not justify the 31% increase. Which means that you consider it unjustified. So we agree. I had a (more serious) discussion on this topic in Puerto Rico with Elliot Noss. When I first started being involved in domain name issues a domain name (without added services like web hosting or other, just the pure simple .com, .org, .net domain name) costed US$ 50. That was not the maximum price, it was *the* price established by the monopoly supplier, who was at the same time registry and registrar (I am mentioning this for those who were not following these discussions ten years ago). In reality the price was US$ 35 to Network Solutions, and US$ 15 to US Government, as domain name tax. Thanks to ICANN, you can have domain names at the price as low as US$ 6, which is a substantial reduction. Surely more substantial than the 7% increase we are facing. However, only a timy fraction of the ink (or the bits) spent to complain about the increase has been spent to felicitate about the decrease. Anyway, back to the discussion with Elliot. The registrar market is very diversified. He did anticipate that there would have been registrars who would have taken the chance to raise the prices abnormally (as the case you quote). However, in a competitive (at the registrar level) market, one is free to switch registrar and move to a lower cost one. How many people will do that, has to be verified (this was one of the things that I had in mind intervening in the public forum talking about a check of what market dynamics would have been triggered by the change in price). Incidentally, I would bet that there are also registrars who would absorbe the cost, in particular if their business model is to sell a service not the plain name. And those are a substantial part of the registrars servicing the individual user community. As for Michael's question: "What is the real justification of 7% "raw material pricing" increase? Does it make sense in this context?" although Vittorio has already answered, let me confirm that the real justification is not an increase in the "production cost", and to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever claimed this. It has been one of the points of a global agreement that was settling several issues, including the definition of registry services, which means that situations like the wildcard in .com would not happen in the future. As for every agreement, any point can be singled out and criticized in isolation, but this does not, IMHO, bring any added value. I would invite who has joined recently to go and read the full documentation on the .com agreement. See http://www.icann.org/minutes/index-2006.html, the meeting was held on 2006-02-28. From the transcript and the different statements you can appreciate how controversial has been the decision. However, as one of the Directors that was against the agreement has said after the vote: "Now this is a decision of the Board, we stop arguing and we support the decision". IMHO, it is very important to be able to look ahead instead of biching on what could have happened if... Cheers, Roberto [not subscribed to NA-Discuss]
What is the real justification of 7% "raw material pricing" increase? Does it make sense in this context? On 7/8/07, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
No, what I find odd is the inqualifiable justification of a further $1.58 increase in pure profit blamed on an ICANN Board decision.
I do not find odd that commercial companies do their business, I find odd that a self appointed champion of the user interests justifies an unjustifiable 31% increase in end user prices based on a 7% raw material prices.
Anyway, I find it odd, but I wonder why I am not surprised.
Regards Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: 09 July 2007 01:33 To: Roberto Gaetano; 'Michael Maranda'; 'At-Large Worldwide'; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: RE: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Budget provisions relating to DomainTasting
Re: "It is again odd that a raise of full $2.00 can be justified in this way."
Sorry, but why do you think that this is odd?
Board members know the Redemption Grace Period Fee charged by Registries is set at $40, and that many registrars will charge well in excess of 4X markup -- eNom is at $160, while some hosting companies charge as much as $260.
Registrar markup of the 42 cent fee increase is to be expected. A 4X markup would raise a registrar price by $1.68, and higher markups could easily raise it over $2.00.
Was the Board so blinded to reality that they thought that registrars would either eat or simply pass along the 42 cents? Markup is part of normal business. You shouldn't find it odd.
What you should find odd is the miserable justifications that were given by Board members for screwing the public with an unjustified price increase.
--- Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote:
First of all, I am sure that Alan knows about the details of Domain Tasting, since in the ALAC mailing lists this problem has
been rased
since months, an issue report has been requested by ALAC, and Alan is in the GNSO team who is in charge for further fact finding.
This said, the fact that domain tasting bring an increase in "regular" registrations is exactly the evidence brought by domainers and domain tasters/kiters to justify the practice. It is at least odd that the same phenomenon is brought up in this discussion. Being paranoiac by nature, I tend to pay attention to coincidences.
Last but not least, the price increase is orthogonal to this issue, as it comes from the 7% increase that registries (not ICANN!) will apply. This increase accounts for a grand total of .42 USD, "autrement dit" 42 cents of US$. It is again odd that a raise of full $2.00 can be justified in this way, and it is at least suspicious that a long time militant omits to remark that the issues are separated and that a raise of such extent is not justified.
Incidentally, relevant ICANN staff in copy to craft appropriate follow up to AIT Domains, thanks Danny for pointing out media clip.
Regards, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: 08 July 2007 21:27 To: Michael Maranda; At-Large Worldwide; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Budget provisions relating to DomainTasting
Re: The small increase may seem trivial, but the principle is more important.
The price increase (which won't go into effect until October 15) is not trivial -- registrars are already raising their prices in anticipation of the price increase:
"AIT Domains says that under the promotion all domain names will cost $6.49 until July 6. However, due to recently announced price increases from ICANN, AIT Domains says it's being forced to raise its prices. Rates are currently scheduled to go up to $8.49 per registration year on July 9."
http://www.thewhir.com/marketwatch/070307_AIT_Holds_Fourth_of_
July_Special.cfm
What's more important than all of this is the
issue of bad
decision-making on the part of the unaccountable ICANN Board. The Internet community has no way of "throwing the bums out" because ICANN remains accountable to no one.
Until this problem is solved it really doesn't much matter what the community consensus is on the AGP or anything else... ICANN remains free to ignore the voice of the people.
Presently, ICANN profits from the consequences of domain tasting... the more names that are tasted, the more names that will eventually be registered as some of these names can successfully be monetized. Profits for the registries, profits for the registrars, profits for ICANN... there were about 16 million new registrations last year (a good chunk of them the direct result of tasting activities).
Don't expect to prevail on this issue without putting up a spectacular fight and screaming for action at every opportunity -- convincing a corporation to kill a lucrative cash cow can only be an uphill battle.
______________________________________________________________
______________________Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l
ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
ALAC
Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
______________________________________________________________ ______________________ The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
Re: What is the real justification of 7% "raw material pricing" increase? It ended a VeriSign-ICANN lawsuit. ICANN gets from VeriSign a fixed registry level fee beginning at US$6 million per year and going up over the next two years to approximately US$12.0 million. Verisign gets .42 cents on every registration (currently at 62,997,429 active registrations for .com -- translates to US$ 26,458,920) two parties in a lawsuit collude and the public gets... ____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
Some have argued the increase was trivial, given people's intuition of adjustments for inflation, etc., and also with a sense that prices were stable for a period (after the initial decline). As you would gather from my prior post, its pretty much nonsense (computing and teleconnectivity costs should be going down, down down). The material on price increases well in advance of the actual increase taking effect is disgusting and disturbing. They appear to be taking a page from the Oil cartels. Again, referencing the gentleman from Tucows... exclusive contracts were won in part by expectations of price decreases. At-Large should have some strong words on this matter for the Board of Directors, however, there is a sense that we are supposed to build up our credibility through "productivity" first. Could we send a statement to the board reporting these increases to the Internet Community, as Danny indicates, well in advance of the official date... and echoing the sentiment that good stewardship demands better? On 7/8/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Re: The small increase may seem trivial, but the principle is more important.
The price increase (which won't go into effect until October 15) is not trivial -- registrars are already raising their prices in anticipation of the price increase:
"AIT Domains says that under the promotion all domain names will cost $6.49 until July 6. However, due to recently announced price increases from ICANN, AIT Domains says it's being forced to raise its prices. Rates are currently scheduled to go up to $8.49 per registration year on July 9."
http://www.thewhir.com/marketwatch/070307_AIT_Holds_Fourth_of_July_Special.c...
What's more important than all of this is the issue of bad decision-making on the part of the unaccountable ICANN Board. The Internet community has no way of "throwing the bums out" because ICANN remains accountable to no one.
Until this problem is solved it really doesn't much matter what the community consensus is on the AGP or anything else... ICANN remains free to ignore the voice of the people.
Presently, ICANN profits from the consequences of domain tasting... the more names that are tasted, the more names that will eventually be registered as some of these names can successfully be monetized. Profits for the registries, profits for the registrars, profits for ICANN... there were about 16 million new registrations last year (a good chunk of them the direct result of tasting activities).
Don't expect to prevail on this issue without putting up a spectacular fight and screaming for action at every opportunity -- convincing a corporation to kill a lucrative cash cow can only be an uphill battle.
____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
I have changed the subject. I will respond separately on the "tasting fee" issue. Michael Maranda ha scritto:
Again, referencing the gentleman from Tucows... exclusive contracts were won in part by expectations of price decreases.
At-Large should have some strong words on this matter for the Board of Directors, however, there is a sense that we are supposed to build up our credibility through "productivity" first.
Just for the sake of precision, we did have clear words when this was decided, at the end of 2005: http://alac.icann.org/announcements/announcement-02dec05.htm Unfortunately, the new .com contract (which allows Verisign to unilaterally increase the registry price by 7% per year) was the result of a political/legal settlement, in which Verisign dropped lawsuits and agreed to support ICANN in exchange for this new contract. The Board at that time decided that it was the right thing to do, because it would ensure the corporation a steady source of revenue, eliminate legal risks, and other similar considerations. In my opinion, that situation only showed a big flaw of the "private governance model", in which an entity which should have the authority to act for the public good is forced not to do so because it lacks the insulation from business and legal pressures that a governmental authority would have, but that possibly is because I do not have the same kind of blind faith in commercial enterprises and in "market self-regulation" that many people at ICANN seem to have.
Could we send a statement to the board reporting these increases to the Internet Community, as Danny indicates, well in advance of the official date... and echoing the sentiment that good stewardship demands better?
If we want to say "we told you", I'm fine. That wouldn't have any practical effect, though - but perhaps would help in preventing similar situations from happening again. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
These matters should be followed from the perspective of Anti-Trust. I very much agree in the questioning of 'market regulation' especially when the illusion of a market is being fostered. And a fortiori in a scenario of limited insulation of the governance function... what can at-large constituency do? 1) Nothing? done deal. 2) wring our hands, meekly express dissatisfaction, 3) bring the story to other consumer advocate groups? It may be the case that the climate doesnt bode well for any Anti-Trust action. (This may be changing). But our definition of "practical effect" should include setting the stage for greater accountability. It is understood that Verisign used legal pressure/threat in it's strategy. As a result of those agreements, will ICANN be in a different position next time? On 7/9/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
I have changed the subject. I will respond separately on the "tasting fee" issue.
Michael Maranda ha scritto:
Again, referencing the gentleman from Tucows... exclusive contracts were won in part by expectations of price decreases.
At-Large should have some strong words on this matter for the Board of Directors, however, there is a sense that we are supposed to build up our credibility through "productivity" first.
Just for the sake of precision, we did have clear words when this was decided, at the end of 2005:
http://alac.icann.org/announcements/announcement-02dec05.htm
Unfortunately, the new .com contract (which allows Verisign to unilaterally increase the registry price by 7% per year) was the result of a political/legal settlement, in which Verisign dropped lawsuits and agreed to support ICANN in exchange for this new contract. The Board at that time decided that it was the right thing to do, because it would ensure the corporation a steady source of revenue, eliminate legal risks, and other similar considerations.
In my opinion, that situation only showed a big flaw of the "private governance model", in which an entity which should have the authority to act for the public good is forced not to do so because it lacks the insulation from business and legal pressures that a governmental authority would have, but that possibly is because I do not have the same kind of blind faith in commercial enterprises and in "market self-regulation" that many people at ICANN seem to have.
Could we send a statement to the board reporting these increases to the Internet Community, as Danny indicates, well in advance of the official date... and echoing the sentiment that good stewardship demands better?
If we want to say "we told you", I'm fine. That wouldn't have any practical effect, though - but perhaps would help in preventing similar situations from happening again. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
May I drop one thought briefly into a very vibrant discussion about Domain Tasting and how the At-Large community comes to agreement on what to say about this issue - and the others which the GNSO is dealing with. Please don't forget that the GNSO Liaison has a mailing list - you can subscribe at http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso- liaison_atlarge-lists.icann.org. This, like the other working groups, is meant to have at least one person from each Region (and others are most welcome) who want to help Alan in coming up with responses to put forward to the GNSO in respect of GNSO issues. If one person from each region were to join this working group - as well as the others - then that person could help to canvas their regions on proposed statements, and indeed could propose views from their regions to the others concerned with GNSO issues. I'm sure Alan - and the other liaisions - would be overjoyed if a few more 'hands' were available to help them in their work. It can be a great deal of work just to attend all the meetings, let alone to then have to propose responses and chase the views of the whole community as well. On 8 Jul 2007, at 23:53, Michael Maranda wrote:
Some have argued the increase was trivial, given people's intuition of adjustments for inflation, etc., and also with a sense that prices were stable for a period (after the initial decline). As you would gather from my prior post, its pretty much nonsense (computing and teleconnectivity costs should be going down, down down).
The material on price increases well in advance of the actual increase taking effect is disgusting and disturbing. They appear to be taking a page from the Oil cartels.
Again, referencing the gentleman from Tucows... exclusive contracts were won in part by expectations of price decreases.
At-Large should have some strong words on this matter for the Board of Directors, however, there is a sense that we are supposed to build up our credibility through "productivity" first.
Could we send a statement to the board reporting these increases to the Internet Community, as Danny indicates, well in advance of the official date... and echoing the sentiment that good stewardship demands better?
On 7/8/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote: Re: The small increase may seem trivial, but the principle is more important.
The price increase (which won't go into effect until October 15) is not trivial -- registrars are already raising their prices in anticipation of the price increase:
"AIT Domains says that under the promotion all domain names will cost $6.49 until July 6. However, due to recently announced price increases from ICANN, AIT Domains says it's being forced to raise its prices. Rates are currently scheduled to go up to $8.49 per registration year on July 9."
http://www.thewhir.com/marketwatch/ 070307_AIT_Holds_Fourth_of_July_Special.cfm
What's more important than all of this is the issue of bad decision-making on the part of the unaccountable ICANN Board. The Internet community has no way of "throwing the bums out" because ICANN remains accountable to no one.
Until this problem is solved it really doesn't much matter what the community consensus is on the AGP or anything else... ICANN remains free to ignore the voice of the people.
Presently, ICANN profits from the consequences of domain tasting... the more names that are tasted, the more names that will eventually be registered as some of these names can successfully be monetized. Profits for the registries, profits for the registrars, profits for ICANN... there were about 16 million new registrations last year (a good chunk of them the direct result of tasting activities).
Don't expect to prevail on this issue without putting up a spectacular fight and screaming for action at every opportunity -- convincing a corporation to kill a lucrative cash cow can only be an uphill battle.
______________________________________________________________________ ______________Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking
Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
The GNSO has chartered a small working group to say what kind of information is needed before starting a PDP, and I am on the group. If the At-Large community would like to make suggestions regarding this, I would be glad to incorporate them into the working group's deliberations. If in fact, At-Large would actually like to do some real research and determine "facts", I would be even more delighted to forward these. Advisory committees may certainly investigate things and report to the Board, but the Bylaws do not claim that such investigation or reporting is the unique responsibility of the ALAC. Regarding "I would recommend that if the ALAC really cares about this issue that the above questions be answered in an ALAC submission to the GNSO (along with any other pertinent findings that may be of use to the council).", I couldn't have said it better myself. As ALAC Liaison to the GNSO, I would be delighted to forward well thought-out positions, representative of the world-wide At-Large community, to Council. Alan At 08/07/2007 12:00 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
The ICANN Staff Issues report on Domain Tasting raised a number of questions. In view of these questions the GNSO Council decided to defer the initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) until such time as a "small ad-hoc group of GNSO representatives" reported back with their findings.
The ICANN Staff questions are:
1. Who benefits from domain tasting, and who is harmed?
2. Who would benefit from cessation of the practice and who would be harmed?
3. How are registry operators being affected by domain tasting?
4. How are registrars being affected by domain tasting?
5. How are registrants being affected by domain tasting?
6. Are there different categories of registrants affected differently?
7. What enforceable rules could be applied toward domain tasting activity?
8. What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing limitations, guidelines or restrictions on registrars' use of the AGP?
9. What would be the impact (positive or negative) on registries, registrars, and registrants of eliminating the AGP?
Frankly, fact-finding is supposed to be the reponsibility of the ALAC who under the bylaws is charged with reporting "their findings and recommendations to the Board".
I would recommend that if the ALAC really cares about this issue that the above questions be answered in an ALAC submission to the GNSO (along with any other pertinent findings that may be of use to the council).
____________________________________________________________________________________ Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Alan, The tasting phenomenon became manifest in February of 2005 when we saw the delete figures jump by one million (although there was one earlier blip in the figures in August of 2003 when Yesnic dropped 628,000 names in a single month). Prior to February 2005, the average ratio of deletes to active registrations floated at around 2% (normal attrition?) -- currently this ratio is at 79.9% The table below should be of help to those getting acquainted with the subject -- source is the ICANN monthly registry reports: .com & .net GROSS DELETES Quantity Month 57,732,289 03-07 55,794,877 02-07 47,824,131 01-07 41,091,749 12-06 35,015,877 11-06 36,210,711 10-06 36,066,561 09-06 35,731,903 08-06 31,904,189 07-06 32,060,586 06-06 34,114,086 05-06 34,223,433 04-06 32,866,971 03-06 23,644,523 02-06 26,701,798 01-06 29,457,617 12-05 26,439,646 11-05 21,667,963 10-05 14,233,772 09-05 10,454,849 08-05 12,659,467 07-05 10,714,766 06-05 7,912,737 05-05 3,236,640 04-05 2,541,295 03-05 1,601,883 02-05 678,215 01-05 718,469 12-04 640,815 11-04 630,199 10-04 630,204 09-04 597,915 08-04 607,317 07-04 716,717 06-04 747,450 05-04 775,523 04-04 699,799 03-04 531,702 02-04 527,852 01-04 541,396 12-03 533,603 11-03 545,614 10-03 557,411 09-03 1,257,714 08-03 605,614 07-03 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/
I believe that those are the same figures that I summaried in an earlier e-mail. ALan At 08/07/2007 04:08 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Alan,
The tasting phenomenon became manifest in February of 2005 when we saw the delete figures jump by one million (although there was one earlier blip in the figures in August of 2003 when Yesnic dropped 628,000 names in a single month). Prior to February 2005, the average ratio of deletes to active registrations floated at around 2% (normal attrition?) -- currently this ratio is at 79.9%
The table below should be of help to those getting acquainted with the subject -- source is the ICANN monthly registry reports:
.com & .net GROSS DELETES
Quantity Month 57,732,289 03-07 55,794,877 02-07 47,824,131 01-07 41,091,749 12-06 35,015,877 11-06 36,210,711 10-06 36,066,561 09-06 35,731,903 08-06 31,904,189 07-06 32,060,586 06-06 34,114,086 05-06 34,223,433 04-06 32,866,971 03-06 23,644,523 02-06 26,701,798 01-06 29,457,617 12-05 26,439,646 11-05 21,667,963 10-05 14,233,772 09-05 10,454,849 08-05 12,659,467 07-05 10,714,766 06-05 7,912,737 05-05 3,236,640 04-05 2,541,295 03-05 1,601,883 02-05 678,215 01-05 718,469 12-04 640,815 11-04 630,199 10-04 630,204 09-04 597,915 08-04 607,317 07-04 716,717 06-04 747,450 05-04 775,523 04-04 699,799 03-04 531,702 02-04 527,852 01-04 541,396 12-03 533,603 11-03 545,614 10-03 557,411 09-03 1,257,714 08-03 605,614 07-03
____________________________________________________________________________________ Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/
Hi Danny In order to do exactly this, the ALAC set up a working group - To participate, please subscribe to the "RAA-WG" mailing list, by using the form at: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.o rg I hope you join - you are one of the most knowledgeable people on this issue Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 12:00 PM To: RJGlass | America@Large; John L Cc: At-Large Worldwide; Danny Younger; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Budget provisions relating to Domain Tasting The ICANN Staff Issues report on Domain Tasting raised a number of questions. In view of these questions the GNSO Council decided to defer the initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) until such time as a "small ad-hoc group of GNSO representatives" reported back with their findings. The ICANN Staff questions are: 1. Who benefits from domain tasting, and who is harmed? 2. Who would benefit from cessation of the practice and who would be harmed? 3. How are registry operators being affected by domain tasting? 4. How are registrars being affected by domain tasting? 5. How are registrants being affected by domain tasting? 6. Are there different categories of registrants affected differently? 7. What enforceable rules could be applied toward domain tasting activity? 8. What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing limitations, guidelines or restrictions on registrars’ use of the AGP? 9. What would be the impact (positive or negative) on registries, registrars, and registrants of eliminating the AGP? Frankly, fact-finding is supposed to be the reponsibility of the ALAC who under the bylaws is charged with reporting "their findings and recommendations to the Board". I would recommend that if the ALAC really cares about this issue that the above questions be answered in an ALAC submission to the GNSO (along with any other pertinent findings that may be of use to the council). ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.1/888 - Release Date: 7/6/2007 6:36 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.1/888 - Release Date: 7/6/2007 6:36 AM
Vittorio, The Board Meeting minutes also stated the following: "Paul Twomey provided information that ICANN will be undertaking a public consultation on representations that it has received from the ITU on .INT and accompanying policies. The US Department of Commerce has written to ICANN asking for advice from on the steps being taken to advance the issue and ICANN will be replying separately". The obvious questions are, (1) On 15 December 2005, ITU-T Study Group 2 (SG2) approved Recommendation E.910, Procedures for registering within the domain ".int" and forwarded the recommendation to ICANN. That correspondence was never published by ICANN. Can we expect the correspondence to be published or does ICANN intend to continue snubbing the ITU? (2) When is the public consultation scheduled to commence? (3) What is meant by the phrase "ICANN will be replying separately"? Does this mean that ICANN's dialogue with the DOC will remain a secret? (4) Who will be parties to the consulation? Will it involve formal arrangements with WIPO member states or IGOs? Can you fill in the gaps as to what Board-level conversations transpired? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&c...
Danny Younger ha scritto:
Can you fill in the gaps as to what Board-level conversations transpired?
As reported in the minutes, this was just information being provided by staff to the Board. There is no decision to be taken yet - when there will be a proposal on the table, it will be discussed. As for the details of what happened three years ago etc., I must confess that I don't know - I've only been the Board liaison for seven months -, but I will gladly forward your questions to staff if you want me to. I am not sure about how high the management of .int is positioned in the list of priority issues for the At Large, though. Dot int is just for international and intergovernmental organizations, and personally I would like to devote as much energy as possible to the RAA revision process, IDNs, new TLDs and other issues that affect individual users. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Vittorio, The IGOs have raised the issue that abusive registrations have (1) suggested to the public that a connection exists between a domain name holder and an IGO; or (2) misled the public as to the existence of a connection between a domain name holder and the IGO. See http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gurry-letter-to-cerf-lynn-21feb03.htm If the public is being deceived (owing in part to the limitations of the .int registration process that only allows for a single IGO registration), then this certainly falls under the category of a user issue. --- Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
Danny Younger ha scritto:
Can you fill in the gaps as to what Board-level conversations transpired?
As reported in the minutes, this was just information being provided by staff to the Board. There is no decision to be taken yet - when there will be a proposal on the table, it will be discussed.
As for the details of what happened three years ago etc., I must confess that I don't know - I've only been the Board liaison for seven months -, but I will gladly forward your questions to staff if you want me to. I am not sure about how high the management of .int is positioned in the list of priority issues for the At Large, though. Dot int is just for international and intergovernmental organizations, and personally I would like to devote as much energy as possible to the RAA revision process, IDNs, new TLDs and other issues that affect individual users. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/
For the record, I am opposed to the increasing price of domains. Not opposed to ICANN charging the fee for the deletions during the AGP.
This is not a proposal to raise the price of domains. Why do you keep claiming that it is? ICANN has charged the 22 cent fee (until recently 25 cents) for years.
So, what ICANN is saying is that a 22cent domain will stop kiting and tasting?? That is ridiculous.
No, they're saying that if you only get back the six bucks when you cancel a domain and not the 22 cents, that will be enough to stop domain kiting. A quick look at the number of domains that are registered and refunded makes it clear that it would. If this is going to be an ALAC position, the various interested parties in the ALAC need to weigh in, but the facts of the situation are completely clear. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
From the panel on Sunday night, the idea came up that one way to change the tasting economic model was to charge the transaction fee (the PIR model) so that it isn’t totally free. $0.22 is a small fee that is already charged, but not on AGP adds. But if I were registering millions of names, that would be a chunk of change that might cause me to reconsider the economic viability of registering millions of names.
This was one of the non-PDP options in the issues report. Alan suggested it at one of the SJ ALAC meetings, and it was agreed that he draft it for quick comment and some comments were received, and he sent it. The Chair isn’t the only person who can send emails. J Of course the registries can simply end the AGP as well, but there were some examples brought up in discussion at the panel of the AGP being actually useful and used by registrants. The registrar/registrant working group is open, and it would be great if people interested in this issue joined the group. To participate, please subscribe to the "RAA-WG" mailing list, by using the form at: HYPERLINK "http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.icann. org"http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org Jacqueline From: RJGlass | America@Large [mailto:jipshida@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 7:10 AM To: John L Cc: At-Large Worldwide; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Budget provisions relating to Domain Tasting The kiting/tasting issue can be resolved by getting rid of the AGP, this was a bad idea from the beginning. The handful of people who made it knew this would happen and did it anyway. For the record, I am opposed to the increasing price of domains. Not opposed to ICANN charging the fee for the deletions during the AGP. So, what ICANN is saying is that a 22cent domain will stop kiting and tasting?? That is ridiculous. This action needs to be adequately discussed. Randy Glass A@L On 7/7/07, John L <HYPERLINK "mailto:johnl@iecc.com"johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
As a registrant, when someone charges me more fees, that someone should be accountable and have some reason for doing such.
"The ALAC requests that ICANN consider charging registrars part or all of the $0.22 fee for names deleted during the AGP."
This is to get rid of domain kiting/tasting. I happen to agree that it's a good idea, but I also agree that it hasn't been sufficiently debated to be presented as ALAC's position. R's, John -- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.1/888 - Release Date: 7/6/2007 6:36 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.1/888 - Release Date: 7/6/2007 6:36 AM
Actually Alan presented the idea in person at san Juan and it was agreed that he would draft something and submit it for quick comment, so it could be sent in on the Thursday night/Friday morning. I recall that there were a few comments that he incorporated (I made one) Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: John L [mailto:johnl@iecc.com] Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 11:22 PM To: RJGlass | America@Large Cc: At-Large Worldwide; Danny Younger; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Budget provisions relating to Domain Tasting
As a registrant, when someone charges me more fees, that someone should be accountable and have some reason for doing such.
"The ALAC requests that ICANN consider charging registrars part or all of the $0.22 fee for names deleted during the AGP."
This is to get rid of domain kiting/tasting. I happen to agree that it's a good idea, but I also agree that it hasn't been sufficiently debated to be presented as ALAC's position. R's, John _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.1/888 - Release Date: 7/6/2007 6:36 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.1/888 - Release Date: 7/6/2007 6:36 AM
At 07/07/2007 01:48 PM, you wrote:
Alan Greenberg posted the following comment on 27 June:
"The ALAC requests that ICANN consider charging registrars part or all of the $0.22 fee for names deleted during the AGP."
http://forum.icann.org/lists/budget-0708/msg00001.html
Sorry to say, that I cannot find the minutes of the meeting in which this decision was agreed upon, nor can I find a recording of the San Juan meeting sessions.
How did the ALAC arrive at this particular recommendation without the benefit of any on-list discussion whatsoever?
What input did the RALOs have into the endorsement of this one specific recommendation? Why were other viable options not endorsed?
Is this an authorized statement? If so, why wasn't it issued by the chair?
Some answers would be appreciated.
Based on discussions during the first few days of meetings in San Juan, it became evident that there *might* be some positive effect of commenting on the budget prior to its approval which was scheduled for Friday, June 29th. I brought the suggestion to the ALAC in the presence of members from two RALO (and whoever else may have been calling in at the time). The idea was approved (in fact, I think I remember that there was an outbreak of applause). I consulted with the ALAC regarding the wording and posted it with the approval of the chair (who was rather occupied withmany other matters). The ALAC is empowered to act without consultation when it is required. The motion had the approval of (I believe all) RALO appointed ALAC members and I heard no formal or informal complaints from any ALS's present. For the record, the entire ICANN proposed budget had been posted for over a month, and this was the only comment *anyone* made on it - something I find rather astounding. Alan
____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
Randy: (just catching up on email - have tons of read, but yet unanswered messages to get through..) Only last week did I learn that the documents were being discussed paragraph by paragraph. A more proactive consultation at a regional level, perhaps.. might have taken allow us to come to San Juan with less language left to negotiate, and a real understanding of the need to have the document concluded before the end of the meeting. A document was completed, however, as you state it could have been done better. For instance, a preamble that states the focus - the mission - of at-large would have been nice. Perhaps that is an idea for the LA meeting... If there's interest, then a working group could be created to revise existing related documents as well the existing by laws and see if we can can up with better language. If enough people are interested and they can work online in advance of the meeting, then - we'd have something to present to the board for their OK at the general meeting. regards Robert On 29-Jun-07, at 5:41 AM, RJGlass | America@Large wrote:
With regard to the current ALAC meeting, and the Proposed Guide to At-Large Structures Application evaluation, I have some concerns.
1) This document lacks any real substance or clarity in the area of what is desired of future ALSs. 2) There is no substantial improvement over the previous version. 3) There has not been substantial deliberation over the issues, rather issues are glossed over and accepted or changed as insignificantly as they have been proposed. 4) Too much time has been spent on procedural issues that could have been better focused on substance.
I am not trying to stand in the way of progress, rather I am convinced that not much progress has been made in the way of making a reformed application process of new ALSs. In preparing for future issues such as this, I would suggest more time and energy be used for making a quality document and clear up issues related to these documents. Unfortunately there has been so much going on that some things fall through the cracks. I'm afraid that this document is one which has been neglected.
-Randy Glass A@L
At 01/07/2007 07:03 PM, Robert Guerra wrote:
Only last week did I learn that the documents were being discussed paragraph by paragraph. A more proactive consultation at a regional level, perhaps.. might have taken allow us to come to San Juan with less language left to negotiate, and a real understanding of the need to have the document concluded before the end of the meeting.
Robert, although you and Beau are new to the group, the rest of the ALAC knew (or should have known) that this was way overdue and HAD to be done by the time we left San Juan. The only comments that were made prior to the meeting were mine, and they were sent to the world-wide at large list. Those notes pointed to the original documents along with my own thoughts and specifically solicited comments - there were VERY few.
A document was completed, however, as you state it could have been done better. For instance, a preamble that states the focus - the mission - of at-large would have been nice. Perhaps that is an idea for the LA meeting...
If there's interest, then a working group could be created to revise existing related documents as well the existing by laws and see if we can can up with better language. If enough people are interested and they can work online in advance of the meeting, then - we'd have something to present to the board for their OK at the general meeting.
A couple of comments. The documents being discussed were specifically aimed at the ALAC, RALOs and regional ICANN staff to help guide their processes. Although they are certainly not private and could use additional wordsmithing, they are not designed to be general documents introducing AT Large to new folks. There should be more introductory documents, perhaps with more examples and words that are more outwardly focused, but Nick says that these are under development (or soon will be). For the record, I support starting to spend our time discussing substantive issues and not just procedures and rules. Alan
regards
Robert
On 29-Jun-07, at 5:41 AM, RJGlass | America@Large wrote:
With regard to the current ALAC meeting, and the Proposed Guide to At-Large Structures Application evaluation, I have some concerns.
1) This document lacks any real substance or clarity in the area of what is desired of future ALSs. 2) There is no substantial improvement over the previous version. 3) There has not been substantial deliberation over the issues, rather issues are glossed over and accepted or changed as insignificantly as they have been proposed. 4) Too much time has been spent on procedural issues that could have been better focused on substance.
I am not trying to stand in the way of progress, rather I am convinced that not much progress has been made in the way of making a reformed application process of new ALSs. In preparing for future issues such as this, I would suggest more time and energy be used for making a quality document and clear up issues related to these documents. Unfortunately there has been so much going on that some things fall through the cracks. I'm afraid that this document is one which has been neglected.
-Randy Glass A@L
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
participants (11)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Danny Younger -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
John L -
Michael Maranda -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
RJGlass | America＠Large -
Robert Guerra -
Roberto Gaetano -
Thompson, Darlene -
Vittorio Bertola