North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
> From owner-nanog@xxxxxxxxx Mon Aug 13 20:15:50 2007 > Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:37:09 -0500 > From: Carl Karsten <carl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: nanog@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy... > > > J Bacher wrote: > > > > Carl Karsten wrote: > > > >>> That is, if you extend domains on credit w/o any useful accountability > >>> of the buyer and this results in a pattern of criminality then the > >>> liability for that fraud should be shared by the seller. > >> > >> I am not sure tasting is criminal or fraud. > > > > You got what you ordered. You used it. You pay for it. It's that simple. > > That doesn't make anything criminal or fraud any more than free samples. If a > registrar wants to give a refund, I don't see anything wrong with that. > > It is not even close to that simple, In and of itself, 'tasting' is neither criminal, nor fraudulent. *HOWEVER*, available evidence suggests that a large proportion of 'tasting' _is_ done "in furtherance/support of" criminal/fraudulent activities. Registry operator data indicates that less than _six-tenths of one perecent_ of 'tasted' domains are kept by the taster. Analysis of data from another registry operator suggests that that operator is now processing roughly 3.25 _million_ *unpalatable* (i.e., _will_ be returned) 'tasting' domain registrations =per=day=. IF we postulate there are 100 million registered names with that operator, then the annualized number of _returned_ 'tasting' registrations is around TEN TIMES the total number of registered domain names. _IF_ the registry operator is at least breaking even on the entire registration process -- 'real domains' plug 'tasting' -- then it would seem that the registry-operator fee for registration of a domain registration could be reduced _by_a_factor_of_ten_, if tasting was the same price as a real registration. On the other hand, if the free tasting is 'out of hand' to the point where registry operators are 'in the red' due to the 'incremental' costs thereof, *that* problem also needs to be addressed. Life could be _really_ interesting if a registry operator contract came up for renewal, and _nobody_ bid. Anybody with _reasonable_ "plan ahead" skills can live with a week between name registration submission, and the name going 'live' -- given that they do know, _immediately_ that the registration is successful. Those who have 'urgent' need should pay a premium for 'expidited' service -- and those who have a _legitimate_ need for such service will not balk at paying a significant premium for that service. It _IS_ worth 'big bucks' to them, because, even at that price, it is '_much_ cheaper than the alternative'. I'd suggest: 1) one week latency between registration and entry into the TLD nameservers. 2) 50% (of 1-year registration fee) 'penalty' for cancelling the registration before it hits the TLD servers. 3) $250 'surcharge' (to registrant) for 'immediate' _irrevocable_ recording in the TLD nameservers, 25% of that surcharge to be retained by the registrar, 25% to the registry operator, and 50% to IANA.