[registrars] WG: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion

[Moshe Fogel]

In this case , why not having a minimum treshold of let's say  1500 , but 
per a quarter , not per month. That way a registrar suffers from a wave of 
fraud attack, can use all the quarterly forgiveness, and an average of 
500/month is definitely not sufficient for tasters even if they use a 
collection of 100 registrars.  A by quarter solution may also prevent the 
need for a manual process.

My point is that any solution or treshold must take into account the needs 
of a relative small registrar who really suffers from those fraud "attacks" 
coming in waves every few months, (that is in addition to the ongoing 
fraudulent attempts etc..).

Moshe Fogel
www.galcomm.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Hall" <rob at momentous.com>
To: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>; 
<registrars at gnso.icann.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 11:21 AM
Subject: RE: [registrars] WG: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed 
GNSO Council Motion


>
> Good point Bruce.  That certainly was not the intent, but you are quite
> right, it could be a by-product.
>
> What I am most concerned about is the one time unusual high levels a
> registrar might see.  I think one could set the threshold low for
> typical, routine transactions. But there should be a way to say,"Hey, I
> have a unique case here and I need help".
>
> I know this may sound unwieldy, but I think we would all know one when
> we see one.  So as painful as it sounds, there probably needs to be
> manual over-ride process for the one time problems.  I would hate to see
> a small Registrar go out of business because of a systems problem.
>
> Rob.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: February-09-08 1:13 AM
> To: registrars at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] WG: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team
> Proposed GNSO Council Motion
>
>
> Hello Rob,
>
>
>> I am concerned about percentages, as it allows registrars that are
>> larger to offer services that the smaller ones can not.  For
>> example, a
>> large registrar could offer tasting still, because of their size based
>> on the percentage system.
>>
>> So I prefer just a flat number that we are all allowed.
>
> Although that then benefits those with large portfolios of registrar
> accreditations.
> e.g if you have a 100 registrars and 1000 names per registrar - that
> provides a tasting pool of 100,000 names.
>
> Sounds like we are creating another thread game.
>
> Alternatively you could just remove a threshold percentage but drop the
> amount that needs to be paid during the first 5 days.  e.g 10 cents
> instead of 20 cents for example.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>