The move will make the domain fee payable on all domains regardless of whether they are deleted within the five day grace period (Add Grace Period).
The resolution was passed at the Special Meeting of ICANN directors on 23 January 2008. It is included in the minutes of the meeting. [icann.org...] . The big question, however, concerns the implementation of this measure.
Regards...jmcc
[edited by: encyclo at 6:49 pm (utc) on Jan. 30, 2008]
Regards...jmcc
[Formal Minutes are still to be approved by the ICANN Board]
23 January 2008
"A Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held via teleconference 23 January 2008. ...5) Proposals to Address Domain Tasting , and
6) Compliance Report on Network Solutions' Domain Reservation Activities
... THEREFORE, the Board resolves (2008.01.04) to encourage ICANN's budgetary process to include fees for all domains added, including domains added during the AGP, and encourages community discussion involved in developing the ICANN budget, subject to both Board approval and registrar approval of this fee.
A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was approved by a vote of 13-0. Bruce Tonkin abstained from voting on this item. ..."
While a "resolution" is "movement", I'll cheer louder if and when any action is actually taken. As jmccormac said, "The big question, however, concerns the implementation of this measure." (And if this does move forward, I will certainly add my views during the "public comment" period.)
[edited by: encyclo at 6:54 pm (utc) on Jan. 30, 2008]
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is considering keeping the annual fee it charges registries for a registered domain name, even if the domain name is forfeited during the five-day Add Grace Period. ICANN currently charges US$0.20 per domain per year.
:) :) <dances><laughs><cries>
[edited by: WiseWebDude at 8:05 pm (utc) on Jan. 30, 2008]
Now to see if NetSol keeps their ridiculous "anti-tasting" policy/scam in effect.
Regards...jmcc
The capability for serious knock-on effects are there. It will be interesting to see if the backlash will carry over to parked/monetised domains. But at a guess, there is some major fallout going to hit the low end of the market in the next few months.
Regards...jmcc
Now to see if NetSol keeps their ridiculous "anti-tasting" policy/scam in effect.
Their ex-CEO was quoted in Infoworld saying they'll drop it if ICANN finally
resolves this.
Personally I'm "worried" if VeriSign chooses to contest this in court.
David
The move will make the domain fee payable on all domains regardless of whether they are deleted within the five day grace period (Add Grace Period).
This is indeed an appreciating effort.
However, the current Domain Fee being charged is 20 cents which is again a very low amount that domain squatters can pay off. Another good idea would be to reduce the grace period to 1 day or so. Why do we need to have a 5 day grace period?
Another good idea would be to reduce the grace period to 1 day or so. Why do we need to have a 5 day grace period?
I've used the AGP (Add Grace Period) a few times -- each was for the purpose the AGP was/is intended for.
Some registrars only have a limited number of employees who actually process AGP deletions. Given different time zones, weekends, and the general "communication work-flow", I think five days is about right.
The big question, however, concerns the implementation of this measure.Exactly right. Personally I'm hoping for the measure to be backdated a few years and invoices sent out.
"Tasting" isn't per se bad IF after an intial 5 day "taste for traffic" the tasting-registrant either pays the domain registration fee or drops the domain so that others can register it.
Tasting is like taking a dealer's test car for a 24 hour test drive.
Kiting is like keeping the dealer's car for a year "because you're thinking about buying it".
Tasting is an evil only when transformed into kiting.
Kiting is the evil per se. I say, in essence, it is a form of theft by deception or unlawful taking and the act ought to be scrutinzed for possible criminal prosecution.
I'm sure the car dealer wouldn't have a problem filing charges if I kept the "test car" for a year without paying for it. :-/
[edited by: Webwork at 1:59 pm (utc) on Jan. 31, 2008]
It's important to remember that this is a measure directed, mostly, towards the cessation of domain kiting: keeping a domain off the market for months without having to pay an annual fee.However it could be argued that domain tasting is an integral part of the kiting process.
"Tasting" isn't per se bad IF after an intial 5 day "taste for traffic" the tasting-registrant either pays the domain registration fee or drops the domain so that others can register it.It is a corruption of the original intent of the AGP. It has been done on such a massive scale that it long ago crossed the line into pure abuse of the system.
Tasting is like taking a dealer's test car for a 24 hour test drive.No. Tasting is like taking the entire output of the world's automotive factories, test driving each and every one of the cars, and then keeping a few.
Tasting is an evil only when transformed into kiting.Tasting is like buying every ticket in a lottery to prevent anyone else winning and then releasing only the losing tickets. It is inherently evil as there is no intention to develop a site - the only intention is to trade on the past good will of the previous owner of the site and the confidence of the accidental user. In some respects it is a switch and bait operation in which the accidental user, expecting to find the previous site, is presented with PPC adverts. Would a moratorium on deleted domains be the way to deal with this (in that deleted domains could be held in a deleted pool for a period of time)?
I say, in essence, it is a form of theft by deception or unlawful taking and the act ought to be scrutinzed for possible criminal prosecution.Agreed. But wouldn't the advertising feed providers potentially be considered accessories?
Regards...jmcc
The 5 day reversal period serves the interests of anyone who gives "full thought" to choosing a website name.
Full thought includes not only "is my website name catchy, nifty, memorable or brandable" but also "is my prospective website name one that people will naturally associate with the nature of the venture I'm about to launch".
In other words: "Will folks search for my venture by typing in the likely website name?"
A test for traffic is a logical, bona fide process for anyone considering a long term naming solution for their website. IF someone is considering 1 of 10 alternative website names one intelligent approach to the selection clearly is to consider the type-in traffic variable.
That is exactly what the mass tasters are doing. They are doing what anyone who selects a website name should do, i.e., consider the benefits of type-in traffic.
Checking a domain for traffic IS NOT an evil per se. Traffic testing is an intelligent act and, not to blow your mind jmcc, traffic testing is an act that more people should consider when choosing a website name.
Someone check jmcc for a pulse. :-P
Kiting IS a problem and an evil, as I stated above.
Mass domain tasting is an exploit of the system and its rules. The solution to mass tasting, and especially kiting, is to raise the cost of the procedure, because - as the tasters know - only so many domains benefit from type-in traffic. They must test millions for traffic since only "1 in a great many" will pay for itself via parking revenue.
The ICANN proposal eviscerates the essential "no cost" element of mass domain traffic testing or "tasting".
Unfortunately, a side effect of the disincentive to mass traffic tasting is that such costs will now also be borne by everyone else who, for good or intelligent reason, should consider traffic testing as part of their logical approach to website name selection.
[edited by: Webwork at 3:05 pm (utc) on Jan. 31, 2008]
jmcc, methinks you are the target of my comments, though I didn't intend them as such.No problem Webwork. :)
The 5 day reversal period serves the interests of anyone who gives "full thought" to choosing a website name.Also serves. But that potentially legitimate use is dwarved by the abuse of the system.
In other words: "Will folks search for my venture by typing in the likely website name?"But isn't that getting into reliance on direct navigation rather than on marketing? It looks a bit like a defence of tasting by pointing to the benefits of direct navigation. And isn't it just distracting from the abuse of the AGP by pointing to a potentially legitimate, small, if not miniscule, scale use?
A test for traffic is a logical, bona fide process for anyone considering a long term naming solution for their website. IF someone is considering 1 of 10 alternative website names one intelligent approach to the selection clearly is to consider the type-in traffic variable.On a small scale for someone developing a website this makes some sense. But the problem is not a small scale one, is it? :)
That is exactly what the mass tasters are doing. They are doing what anyone who selects a website name should do, i.e., consider the benefits of type-in traffic.No. There is a fundamental difference in objectives. Most of the mass tasters are sifting through domains in order to find the ones that monetise best for PPC. There is no intent to develop as in the case of the small operator looking for a good domain name for their website.
Checking a domain for traffic IS NOT an evil per se. Traffic testing is an intelligent act and, not to blow your mind jmcc, traffic testing is an act that more people should consider when choosing a website name.Checking a domain (or even a few) for traffic is not. Checking the entire day's drop across .com/net/etc is.
Someone check jmcc for a pulse. :-PI'm running a .mobi web survey at the moment so I'm likely to nod off. :)
Mass domain tasting is an exploit of the system. The solution to mass tasting, and especially kiting, is to raise the cost of the procedure, because - as the tasters know - only so many domains benefit from type-in traffic. They must test millions for traffic since only "1 in a great many" will pay for itself via parking revenue.Well raising the cost of the procedure has worked with .org and has reduced the problem somewhat.
The ICANN proposal eviscerates the essential "no cost" element of mass domain traffic testing or "tasting".It should do - if they ever get around to implementing it.
Regards...jmcc
edit reason: typos, ironically. :)
[edited by: jmccormac at 4:03 pm (utc) on Jan. 31, 2008]
My objective was primarily to challenge the idea that tasting - traffic testing - is evil per se. It's not. Traffic testing actually has the potential to work as a website name selection variable. I'd suggest that anyone working for or consulting with folks who need a website discuss the idea of testing alternative names for their traffic potential.
People shouldn't shun "traffic testing" because "it's bad", any more than people shouldn't plant poppies because somewhere on the planet poppies are grown to produce heroin.
People: Traffic testing is a good idea which has suffered due to a failure of ICANN to anticipate and plan or, at least, respond in a more timely manner to an exploit. When it comes to domain selection don't assume an air of guilt or ignore the possibility of traffic tasintg.
Instead, give the darned domainer-tasters some competition. :)
[icann.org...]
[I hope links to ICANN docs are OK in here, if not feel free to remove the post]
Even if you register a .com, the .net, .org etc. who were previously free all of a sudden become unavailable for a few days. What gives them the right to do this?
I'm 100% in favor of a system where "if you use it, you bought it" is true:
I never bought the "unintentional" typo argument. Every registrar gives you plenty of opportunities to look at the domain name you're registering to realize if you made a mistake or not.
Heh, you'd be surprised to know some end users do register misspellings. I've
personally handled AGP requests for many of them, mostly wherein the actual
one is still available.
Level of intelligence has never been a requirement in registering a domain. :)
David
Personally I'd rater pay the full 1 year price on any and all...I think that's the best solution as well. Anything involving obtaining a domain registration at all should be billed for for the one year price (backdated to anyone who's paid less in the past for something). At least that way the playing field is a bit more even.
Heh, you'd be surprised to know some end users do register misspellings
I can attest to this as well, I've had a few dealings with people where they told me the name and FTP login information for a site they registered and bought hosting for for me to work on it, only to find out that I couldn't get in because I was actually spelling the name correctly.
After what I've been through these past few weeks, I'd even be in favour of a "use it or lose it" regulation: if the website under a domain name is not a legitimate one (at minimum, the URL should be used as a redirect), the domain "owner" should be constrained to free up the name. At least he should be penalised in some way - a trend that Google has seemingly begun recently.
That's been beaten to death lots of times. While I understand that, let's just say
there'll be a gazillion issues, not including diverse and/or competing interests.
Besides, forum charter somewhat prevents members from discussing that. :P
David
