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

[elliot noss]

more undue revenue to registries? at least if it goes to ICANN it can  
defray the fee that registrants pay.

On Apr 10, 2008, at 4:13 AM, Marcus Faure wrote:

>
>
> 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