[registrars] Call for action - GNSO motion on Domain Tasting

[Marcus Faure]

Hi,

I still do not understand - and have not found anyone who could explain
to me - why in the 0.2$ model ICANN would receive the 0.2$
completely. Shouldn't there rather be a split between ICANN and the
registry based on the same proportion between registry price and ICANN
fee that is in place now?

Marcus

> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> * I am not sure how many Registrars are aware of this but as it stands, it
> seems the Registry constituency is now voting in favor of the GNSO motion to
> solve the domain tasting problem by imposing the full $7 fee on each deleted
> domain barring a 10% minimum (Please check
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dt-wg/msg00532.html)
> 
> * As has been discussed amongst the registrars, and in the last meeting
> acknowledged by some of the registries, as well as, more specifically some
> of the board members, this is far from an ideal solution. While a set of
> Registrars seem to be using the AGP for tasting, the AGP has several
> legitimate uses that Mason and Joathan effectively communicated in their
> presentations. While it maybe argued that the proposal has a 10% threshold,
> there was reasonable consensus that this threshold is quite low and poses
> considerable risks to registrars (risks such as fraud, or API abuse etc)
> 
> * Given that the Board has already approved a 20 cent ICANN fee to curb
> Domain Tasting, and only the implementation thereof remains pending, it does
> not make sense for additional overlapping solutions especially ones that are
> onerous and out of the bounds of the scope of the problem itself
> 
> * If the Registry Constituency ends up passing this motion then we will have
> so many mixed overlapping proposals for the same problem - an ICANN board
> proposal, the GNSO proposal, and the individual Registry Funnel requests
> which have also been approved
> 
> * I believe our reps should discuss this further with the Registry
> Constituency as well as the GNSO
> 
> * I would like some more insight from our council members as to what our
> action plan should be / is
> 
> * I wonder if there is any sense of the direction of the Board on this one,
> given that they have already adopted a view with their affirmation of their
> own proposal
> 
> * I also believe that we should present a strong and compelling position
> from our side that clearly explains that the proposed GNSO motion is
> overstepping its intentions considerably, and is impacting areas beyond the
> scope of the problem
> 
> 
> Warm Regards
> Bhavin Turakhia
> Founder, Chairman & CEO
> Directi
> -------------------------
> http://www.directi.com
> Blog: http://bhavin.directi.com
> T: +91-22-66797600
> M (US): +1 (415) 366 7762
> M (IN): +91 9820097557
> F: +91-22-66797510
> ------------------------- 
> 
> 


-- 
Global Village GmbH  Tel +49 2855 9651 0     GF Marcus Faure
Mehrumer Str. 16     Fax +49 2855 9651 110   Amtsgericht Duisburg HRB9987
D46562 Voerde        eMail info at globvill.de  Ust-Id DE180295363