Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I was just struck by a couple of statistics: [snip] In January 2007, according to PIR five registrars deleted 1,773,910 domain names during the grace period and retained 10,862. That same month, VeriSign reported that among top ten registrars, 95% of all deleted .COM and .Net domain names were the result of domain tasting. [snip] http://www.informationweek.com/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=20150 0223 Having said that, Jay Westerdal mentioned on Sunday that: [snip] Today was the largest Domain Tasting day ever. We recorded over 8 Million Transactions today. This is a new high. We have never seen 8 Million transactions on one day before. That would be either an add or delete. Over 99 percent of these transactions are completely free and use the 5 day grace period to test domain names for traffic before they are purchase for a long term buy. [snip] http://blog.domaintools.com/2007/08/biggest-domain-tasting-day-ever/ Although I'm not sure all of that 8M+ were actual "tasted", it does represent an astronomical number of registrations. Just a couple of data points. - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.2 (Build 2014) wj8DBQFGwPUBq1pz9mNUZTMRAlumAKD6t0AQS050YRaaxCqYomMWPDP6NgCgmSFO Frvz42ZtnHXYaRQ8hgXK4LA= =bvP6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
On Aug 14, 2007, at 12:19 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I was just struck by a couple of statistics:
[snip]
In January 2007, according to PIR five registrars deleted 1,773,910 domain names during the grace period and retained 10,862. That same month, VeriSign reported that among top ten registrars, 95% of all deleted .COM and .Net domain names were the result of domain tasting.
So, if they charged a $ 1 "return fee," they would either - produce revenues of several million USD per month (unlikely) or - cut domain tasting by about 2 orders of magnitude. This seems like one problem with a simple solution. I am sure that someone will rapidly tell me why it won't work, but in an era when an airline will charge you $ 40 to $ 200 USD to correct a typo, I don't see why this is excessive. Regard Marshall
[snip]
http://www.informationweek.com/management/showArticle.jhtml? articleID=20150 0223
Having said that, Jay Westerdal mentioned on Sunday that:
[snip]
Today was the largest Domain Tasting day ever. We recorded over 8 Million Transactions today. This is a new high. We have never seen 8 Million transactions on one day before. That would be either an add or delete. Over 99 percent of these transactions are completely free and use the 5 day grace period to test domain names for traffic before they are purchase for a long term buy.
[snip]
http://blog.domaintools.com/2007/08/biggest-domain-tasting-day-ever/
Although I'm not sure all of that 8M+ were actual "tasted", it does represent an astronomical number of registrations.
Just a couple of data points.
- - ferg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.2 (Build 2014)
wj8DBQFGwPUBq1pz9mNUZTMRAlumAKD6t0AQS050YRaaxCqYomMWPDP6NgCgmSFO Frvz42ZtnHXYaRQ8hgXK4LA= =bvP6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
So, if they charged a $ 1 "return fee," they would either
It needn't even be that much. Bob Parsons of Godaddy has proposed that the 22 cent ICANN fee be non-refundable, an approach that has the advantage that it removes any incentive by registrars or registries to encourage tasting so they can keep the penalty money. The .ORG registry asked last year for permission to charge 5 cents per deletion to any registrar that deletes more than 90% of their registrations. The ICANN board approved it last November, so we should be able to get some actual data about what difference it made, although I am unable to find any reports on the PIR web site more recent than last October. 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.
On Aug 15, 2007, at 12:29 PM, John Levine wrote:
So, if they charged a $ 1 "return fee," they would either
It needn't even be that much. Bob Parsons of Godaddy has proposed that the 22 cent ICANN fee be non-refundable, an approach that has the advantage that it removes any incentive by registrars or registries to encourage tasting so they can keep the penalty money.
That would mean the return fee would be 0.22 plus whatever the registry added to it, which would be fine by me.
The .ORG registry asked last year for permission to charge 5 cents per deletion to any registrar that deletes more than 90% of their registrations.
I don't like that so much. Complications invite gaming the system. Regards Marshall
The ICANN board approved it last November, so we should be able to get some actual data about what difference it made, although I am unable to find any reports on the PIR web site more recent than last October.
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.
The .ORG registry asked last year for permission to charge 5 cents per deletion to any registrar that deletes more than 90% of their registrations.
I don't like that so much. Complications invite gaming the system.
It has the practical advantage of already having been implemented. 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.
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, John L wrote:
The .ORG registry asked last year for permission to charge 5 cents per deletion to any registrar that deletes more than 90% of their registrations.
I don't like that so much. Complications invite gaming the system.
Yes, they are just going to delete 89% of their registrations.
It has the practical advantage of already having been implemented.
What is important is not if it has been implemented but how effective it has been. But unfortunately with just one TLD, its possible that positive info can not be relied on as given limitations bad registrants could have just moved to using other TLDs that do not have the limits). Personally I think one way to do attempt to deal with it is to require explanation for each and every registration that is deleted and then look overall at types of explanations given and put additional barriers for certain cases (i.e. paperwork, etc) plus capability of ICANN to do audits of registrars deleted domains to verify that explanations they are given are consistent with actual activity. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net
Well, if they only delete 89% instead of 99.9% then to make 1,000,000 tasted registrations they will have to keep 100,000 of them, which will send a fair amount of money to the registry. Effectively making the minimum registration costs for tasting 10% of the normal cost. On 8/16/07, william(at)elan.net <william@elan.net> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, John L wrote:
The .ORG registry asked last year for permission to charge 5 cents per deletion to any registrar that deletes more than 90% of their registrations.
I don't like that so much. Complications invite gaming the system.
Yes, they are just going to delete 89% of their registrations.
It has the practical advantage of already having been implemented.
What is important is not if it has been implemented but how effective it has been. But unfortunately with just one TLD, its possible that positive info can not be relied on as given limitations bad registrants could have just moved to using other TLDs that do not have the limits).
Personally I think one way to do attempt to deal with it is to require explanation for each and every registration that is deleted and then look overall at types of explanations given and put additional barriers for certain cases (i.e. paperwork, etc) plus capability of ICANN to do audits of registrars deleted domains to verify that explanations they are given are consistent with actual activity.
-- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net
participants (6)
-
Dorn Hetzel -
John L -
John Levine
-
Marshall Eubanks -
Paul Ferguson -
william(at)elan.net