ALAC Statement on Domain Tasting
Alan, If the Add Grace Period is not eliminated, then registrars will simply adjust their business models to compensate for any registrar level transaction fee that might be imposed, and domain tasting will continue. You have argued that: (1) fully eliminating the AGP will not be acceptable to registrars (2) Registrars say that they make valid uses of the AGP and could not easily eliminate it without significant pain or expense. (3) from the RC statement it is clear that wholesale elimination of the AGP will not fly. (4) wholesale elimination... would require a formal consensus policy.
From my point of view, I don't care if eliminating the AGP is not acceptable to registrars -- they don't hold any veto power within the GNSO, and I'm not daunted by the prospect of a Supermajority determination that doesn't include the registrars. Fashioning a Consensus Policy is possible even in the absence of registrar support.
Yes, registrars have listed a series of purportedly "legitimate" uses of the AGP, but I find none of their justifications listed in the ad hoc outcomes report to have sufficient merit: AGP Use 1: Correction of typographical errors made by registrant -- with all the redundancies built into the registration process (including all the upsell pages) the AGP is no longer needed to dealt with this remote possibility. AGP Use 2: Cart hold to provide access to domain names -- the concept of reserving a domain at the registry once it gets "looked up" by a user (that hasn't paid for the registration) is an abomination. As stated in the White Paper: "The failure to make a domain name applicant pay for its use of a domain name has encouraged cyberpirates and is a practice that should end as soon as possible." AGP Use 3: Fraud remedies -- arrangements regarding the settlement of fraud claims can be built into the Credits section in the Service Level Agreement within the relevant registry-registrar agreements; it need not be part of the AGP. AGP Use 4: Monitoring, testing and development of systems -- This argument seeks to make the "cost of doing business" a registry subsidy. The argument is weak and can readily be rejected. AGP Use 5: Addressing Registrant Buyers Remorse -- a fine example of BS. The best way of dealing with the current spate of domain tasting is to eliminate the Add Grace Period; this option is preferable to all others. The ALAC should advocate for that position. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
For once I agree with Danny ;>) Just to add insult to injury, the AGP was initially created for the protection of the registrant, as its primary use would have been to allow a registrant not to lose their money in case of mistyped registration. IMHO, regardless the proposed solution, which would be anyway the object of a mediation among the different components, ALAC should focus on the drawback of the current situation on the bona-fide individual registrants and on the end users of the internet (including, but not limited to, users of the Web). Cheers, Roberto (talking as an individual)
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Monday, 03 December 2007 13:40 To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: [At-Large] ALAC Statement on Domain Tasting
Alan,
If the Add Grace Period is not eliminated, then registrars will simply adjust their business models to compensate for any registrar level transaction fee that might be imposed, and domain tasting will continue.
You have argued that:
(1) fully eliminating the AGP will not be acceptable to registrars (2) Registrars say that they make valid uses of the AGP and could not easily eliminate it without significant pain or expense. (3) from the RC statement it is clear that wholesale elimination of the AGP will not fly. (4) wholesale elimination... would require a formal consensus policy.
From my point of view, I don't care if eliminating the AGP is not acceptable to registrars -- they don't hold any veto power within the GNSO, and I'm not daunted by the prospect of a Supermajority determination that doesn't include the registrars. Fashioning a Consensus Policy is possible even in the absence of registrar support.
Yes, registrars have listed a series of purportedly "legitimate" uses of the AGP, but I find none of their justifications listed in the ad hoc outcomes report to have sufficient merit:
AGP Use 1: Correction of typographical errors made by registrant -- with all the redundancies built into the registration process (including all the upsell pages) the AGP is no longer needed to dealt with this remote possibility.
AGP Use 2: Cart "hold" to provide access to domain names -- the concept of reserving a domain at the registry once it gets "looked up" by a user (that hasn't paid for the registration) is an abomination. As stated in the White Paper: "The failure to make a domain name applicant pay for its use of a domain name has encouraged cyberpirates and is a practice that should end as soon as possible."
AGP Use 3: Fraud remedies -- arrangements regarding the settlement of fraud claims can be built into the Credits section in the Service Level Agreement within the relevant registry-registrar agreements; it need not be part of the AGP.
AGP Use 4: Monitoring, testing and development of systems -- This argument seeks to make the "cost of doing business" a registry subsidy. The argument is weak and can readily be rejected.
AGP Use 5: Addressing Registrant 'Buyer's Remorse' -- a fine example of BS.
The best way of dealing with the current spate of domain tasting is to eliminate the Add Grace Period; this option is preferable to all others. The ALAC should advocate for that position.
______________________________________________________________ ______________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
_______________________________________________ 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
On 3-Dec-07, at 7:39 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
I'm not daunted by the prospect of a Supermajority determination that doesn't include the registrars. Fashioning a Consensus Policy is possible even in the absence of registrar support.
I don't think this is the right approach. This need not be confrontational. All the registrars I have talked to are in favor of fixing the problem. There isn't agreement on the method, but that doesn't warrant a call to the ramparts against the registrars. For my part, I'm going to dig into my retail registration data and pull out some stats indicating how many AGP cancellations we file on behalf of registrants, vs. the number that we cancel because of mistakes we've made, or for testing purposes. We're not involved in the tasting game, so I can't provide any benchmarks from that perspective. Hopefully this data might be helpful for your efforts. -ross
Regardless of the quality of the arguments (and I agree with you on some of them), if the registrars AND registries use there weighted vote against such a motion, it will not result in a supermajority vote, and without that, I think that the chances of Board approval (against registrars and registries) is minimal I see no merit in putting all ALAC support in that one option when there are others that will work as well and which other constituencies may support. Alan At 03/12/2007 07:39 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
Alan,
If the Add Grace Period is not eliminated, then registrars will simply adjust their business models to compensate for any registrar level transaction fee that might be imposed, and domain tasting will continue.
You have argued that:
(1) fully eliminating the AGP will not be acceptable to registrars (2) Registrars say that they make valid uses of the AGP and could not easily eliminate it without significant pain or expense. (3) from the RC statement it is clear that wholesale elimination of the AGP will not fly. (4) wholesale elimination... would require a formal consensus policy.
From my point of view, I don't care if eliminating the AGP is not acceptable to registrars -- they don't hold any veto power within the GNSO, and I'm not daunted by the prospect of a Supermajority determination that doesn't include the registrars. Fashioning a Consensus Policy is possible even in the absence of registrar support.
Yes, registrars have listed a series of purportedly "legitimate" uses of the AGP, but I find none of their justifications listed in the ad hoc outcomes report to have sufficient merit:
AGP Use 1: Correction of typographical errors made by registrant -- with all the redundancies built into the registration process (including all the upsell pages) the AGP is no longer needed to dealt with this remote possibility.
AGP Use 2: Cart "hold" to provide access to domain names -- the concept of reserving a domain at the registry once it gets "looked up" by a user (that hasn't paid for the registration) is an abomination. As stated in the White Paper: "The failure to make a domain name applicant pay for its use of a domain name has encouraged cyberpirates and is a practice that should end as soon as possible."
AGP Use 3: Fraud remedies -- arrangements regarding the settlement of fraud claims can be built into the Credits section in the Service Level Agreement within the relevant registry-registrar agreements; it need not be part of the AGP.
AGP Use 4: Monitoring, testing and development of systems -- This argument seeks to make the "cost of doing business" a registry subsidy. The argument is weak and can readily be rejected.
AGP Use 5: Addressing Registrant 'Buyer's Remorse' -- a fine example of BS.
The best way of dealing with the current spate of domain tasting is to eliminate the Add Grace Period; this option is preferable to all others. The ALAC should advocate for that position.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
_______________________________________________ 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
(against registrars and registries) is minimal I see no merit in putting all ALAC support in that one option when there are others that will work as well and which other constituencies may support.
I'm with Roberto and Danny. If we're reprsenting registrants, we should say that from the registrants' point of view the AGP is a failure and the world would be better off without it. How about we say that we strongly prefer getting rid of the AGP, but failing that, lesser adjustments to the AGP to make tasting financially unattractive would be a good start. It appears nobody here feels strongly among the various ways not to give quite all of the money back. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
John L wrote:
I'm with Roberto and Danny. If we're reprsenting registrants, we should say that from the registrants' point of view the AGP is a failure and the world would be better off without it.
Exactly; that should be the main statement. While a willingness to compromise can follow, it is reasonable and necessary to indicate with absolute clarity that the AGP's very existence works to the detriment of Internet users and non-exploitive registrants. (Obviously _some_ registrants like the status quo. :-P ) Supposedly ICANN is looking to us (At-Large) to provide exactly this kind of input. If not us, then who? It needs to be put on the record that AGP is contrary to the public interest, and we're the only constituency able to do so. Of course ICANN is welcome to disregard this advice or to attempt some kind of diplomatic accommodation. Our constituency don't even have a voting spot on the Board. But if this ("AGP is evil") is our stance it must be put forward clearly and unambiguously, so that nobody can argue that we were "kind of" OK with it because we later were forced to accept/negotiate a partial measure. IMO it's important that our compromise position not be seen as our opening one. - Evan
I'd agree with that wording... Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of John L Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:32 To: Alan Greenberg Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Statement on Domain Tasting
(against registrars and registries) is minimal I see no merit in putting all ALAC support in that one option when there are others that will work as well and which other constituencies may support.
I'm with Roberto and Danny. If we're reprsenting registrants, we should say that from the registrants' point of view the AGP is a failure and the world would be better off without it.
How about we say that we strongly prefer getting rid of the AGP, but failing that, lesser adjustments to the AGP to make tasting financially unattractive would be a good start. It appears nobody here feels strongly among the various ways not to give quite all of the money back.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex- Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
_______________________________________________ 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1165 - Release Date: 12/2/2007 20:34
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1165 - Release Date: 12/2/2007 20:34
2007/12/4, John L <johnl@iecc.com>:
How about we say that we strongly prefer getting rid of the AGP, but failing that, lesser adjustments to the AGP to make tasting financially unattractive would be a good start. It appears nobody here feels strongly among the various ways not to give quite all of the money back.
I am fine with this direction. izumi
On 3-Dec-07, at 7:39 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
If the Add Grace Period is not eliminated, then registrars will simply adjust their business models to compensate for any registrar level transaction fee that might be imposed, and domain tasting will continue.
I'm not sure this is entirely correct. Levying a transaction fee for all registrations, regardless of their duration, will change the economics of the transaction. The effect of a transaction fee at $0.01 will be different than a transaction fee set at $6.42. A transaction fee of $0.01 requires that 1 in 642 tasted names yield more than $6.42 per year, a transaction fee of $6.42 (which is essentially equal to eliminating the AGP) requires that every name tasted yields more than $6.42. In other words, it is possible to properly modify the fees associated with a registration such that it becomes unprofitable for tasters to guess which names might run a profit over the course of a year. Levying a $.20 fee on AGP transactions would mean that 1 in 32.1 names needs to yield more than $6.42. In April of 2006, the tasting keep rate was estimated to be approximately 1 in 17. In February of 2007, this was estimated to be 1 in 13.3. Despite the apparent increase in the take rate over this period, I'm not sure that it reflects anything more than increased sophistication in the tasting and monetization models. [as you read the rest, please remind yourself that I am not a mathematician and the actual numbers might be incorrect...] If these numbers are accurate, then the economic solution to the problem is simply to levy a fee that makes the odds exceptionally bad for tasters - i.e. if they know that 1 in 13.3 names will be profitable, but that finding that one name may cost them $9.97 (reflecting a $.75 levy), then they are highly unlikely to engage in the behavior -i.e. it would likely be unprofitable. Without even pulling my stats on cancellations, I can definitely say that I'd be happy to pay a $.75 fee for mistakes. Systems testing on the other hand might require some special treatment - for example, the registry could provide the registrar with a string that they would use for testing - something like systemtestingdomain0001-IANARID-69.com, where the numeric increases by 1 for each subsequent name ran through the tests. All of the names tested would also need to automatically expire after some reasonable period of time (7 days, 10 days?) after the testing occured and could not be re-registered by anyone. If a registrar ran subsequent tests, they would simply register the next name in the sequence from where they left off in their last testing.... Just some ideas... -r
I agree. We should advocate, and I agree that we should advocate for the elimination of the AGP. I don’t see any valid reasons to keep it. If I have a problem with a typo and I need the refund, I can simply go the usual way to get a refund when I buy anything - ask customer service for it! Why should we have a whole system set up to "try before you buy", esp when most consumers don't know about it or use it and aren't asking for it? If we start off with a lesser position, we have nothing to give up in any negotiation (which is obviously going to happen) and still arrive at something useful. Besides, we might actually win this point (or something close to it,) as there are many others in the GNSO besides the registries and the registrars... JAM
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 08:40 To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: [At-Large] ALAC Statement on Domain Tasting
Alan,
If the Add Grace Period is not eliminated, then registrars will simply adjust their business models to compensate for any registrar level transaction fee that might be imposed, and domain tasting will continue.
You have argued that:
(1) fully eliminating the AGP will not be acceptable to registrars (2) Registrars say that they make valid uses of the AGP and could not easily eliminate it without significant pain or expense. (3) from the RC statement it is clear that wholesale elimination of the AGP will not fly. (4) wholesale elimination... would require a formal consensus policy.
From my point of view, I don't care if eliminating the AGP is not acceptable to registrars -- they don't hold any veto power within the GNSO, and I'm not daunted by the prospect of a Supermajority determination that doesn't include the registrars. Fashioning a Consensus Policy is possible even in the absence of registrar support.
Yes, registrars have listed a series of purportedly "legitimate" uses of the AGP, but I find none of their justifications listed in the ad hoc outcomes report to have sufficient merit:
AGP Use 1: Correction of typographical errors made by registrant -- with all the redundancies built into the registration process (including all the upsell pages) the AGP is no longer needed to dealt with this remote possibility.
AGP Use 2: Cart “hold” to provide access to domain names -- the concept of reserving a domain at the registry once it gets "looked up" by a user (that hasn't paid for the registration) is an abomination. As stated in the White Paper: "The failure to make a domain name applicant pay for its use of a domain name has encouraged cyberpirates and is a practice that should end as soon as possible."
AGP Use 3: Fraud remedies -- arrangements regarding the settlement of fraud claims can be built into the Credits section in the Service Level Agreement within the relevant registry-registrar agreements; it need not be part of the AGP.
AGP Use 4: Monitoring, testing and development of systems -- This argument seeks to make the "cost of doing business" a registry subsidy. The argument is weak and can readily be rejected.
AGP Use 5: Addressing Registrant ‘Buyer’s Remorse’ -- a fine example of BS.
The best way of dealing with the current spate of domain tasting is to eliminate the Add Grace Period; this option is preferable to all others. The ALAC should advocate for that position.
_______________________________________________________________________ _____________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
_______________________________________________ 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1165 - Release Date: 12/2/2007 20:34
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1165 - Release Date: 12/2/2007 20:34
I agreed that we should advocate for the elimination of the AGP. Thu Hue,Nguyen VIetNEt-ICT -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline A. Morris Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 3:50 AM To: 'Danny Younger'; 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: [*SPAM* Score/Req: 7.4/7.0] Re: [At-Large] ALAC Statement on Domain Tasting I agree. We should advocate, and I agree that we should advocate for the elimination of the AGP. I don't see any valid reasons to keep it. If I have a problem with a typo and I need the refund, I can simply go the usual way to get a refund when I buy anything - ask customer service for it! Why should we have a whole system set up to "try before you buy", esp when most consumers don't know about it or use it and aren't asking for it? If we start off with a lesser position, we have nothing to give up in any negotiation (which is obviously going to happen) and still arrive at something useful. Besides, we might actually win this point (or something close to it,) as there are many others in the GNSO besides the registries and the registrars... JAM
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 08:40 To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: [At-Large] ALAC Statement on Domain Tasting
Alan,
If the Add Grace Period is not eliminated, then registrars will simply adjust their business models to compensate for any registrar level transaction fee that might be imposed, and domain tasting will continue.
You have argued that:
(1) fully eliminating the AGP will not be acceptable to registrars (2) Registrars say that they make valid uses of the AGP and could not easily eliminate it without significant pain or expense. (3) from the RC statement it is clear that wholesale elimination of the AGP will not fly. (4) wholesale elimination... would require a formal consensus policy.
From my point of view, I don't care if eliminating the AGP is not acceptable to registrars -- they don't hold any veto power within the GNSO, and I'm not daunted by the prospect of a Supermajority determination that doesn't include the registrars. Fashioning a Consensus Policy is possible even in the absence of registrar support.
Yes, registrars have listed a series of purportedly "legitimate" uses of the AGP, but I find none of their justifications listed in the ad hoc outcomes report to have sufficient merit:
AGP Use 1: Correction of typographical errors made by registrant -- with all the redundancies built into the registration process (including all the upsell pages) the AGP is no longer needed to dealt with this remote possibility.
AGP Use 2: Cart "hold" to provide access to domain names -- the concept of reserving a domain at the registry once it gets "looked up" by a user (that hasn't paid for the registration) is an abomination. As stated in the White Paper: "The failure to make a domain name applicant pay for its use of a domain name has encouraged cyberpirates and is a practice that should end as soon as possible."
AGP Use 3: Fraud remedies -- arrangements regarding the settlement of fraud claims can be built into the Credits section in the Service Level Agreement within the relevant registry-registrar agreements; it need not be part of the AGP.
AGP Use 4: Monitoring, testing and development of systems -- This argument seeks to make the "cost of doing business" a registry subsidy. The argument is weak and can readily be rejected.
AGP Use 5: Addressing Registrant 'Buyer's Remorse' -- a fine example of BS.
The best way of dealing with the current spate of domain tasting is to eliminate the Add Grace Period; this option is preferable to all others. The ALAC should advocate for that position.
_______________________________________________________________________ _____________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
_______________________________________________ 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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1165 - Release Date: 12/2/2007 20:34
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1165 - Release Date: 12/2/2007 20:34 _______________________________________________ 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 (9)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Izumi AIZU -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
John L -
Nguyen Thu Hue -
Roberto Gaetano -
Ross Rader