In January 2007, according to PIR five registrars deleted 1,773,910 domain
names during the grace period and retained 10,862. That same month,
VeriSign reported that among top ten registrars, 95% of all deleted .COM
and .Net domain names were the result of domain tasting.
Having said that, Jay Westerdal mentioned on Sunday that:
[snip]
Today was the largest Domain Tasting day ever. We recorded over 8 Million
Transactions today. This is a new high. We have never seen 8 Million
transactions on one day before. That would be either an add or delete. Over
99 percent of these transactions are completely free and use the 5 day
grace period to test domain names for traffic before they are purchase for
a long term buy.
In January 2007, according to PIR five registrars deleted 1,773,910 domain
names during the grace period and retained 10,862. That same month,
VeriSign reported that among top ten registrars, 95% of all deleted .COM
and .Net domain names were the result of domain tasting.
So, if they charged a $ 1 "return fee," they would either
- produce revenues of several million USD per month (unlikely) or
- cut domain tasting by about 2 orders of magnitude.
This seems like one problem with a simple solution. I am sure that someone will rapidly tell
me why it won't work, but in an era when an airline will charge you $ 40 to $ 200 USD to correct
a typo, I don't see why this is excessive.
So, if they charged a $ 1 "return fee," they would either
It needn't even be that much. Bob Parsons of Godaddy has proposed
that the 22 cent ICANN fee be non-refundable, an approach that has the
advantage that it removes any incentive by registrars or registries to
encourage tasting so they can keep the penalty money.
The .ORG registry asked last year for permission to charge 5 cents per
deletion to any registrar that deletes more than 90% of their
registrations. The ICANN board approved it last November, so we
should be able to get some actual data about what difference it made,
although I am unable to find any reports on the PIR web site more
recent than last October.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
So, if they charged a $ 1 "return fee," they would either
It needn't even be that much. Bob Parsons of Godaddy has proposed
that the 22 cent ICANN fee be non-refundable, an approach that has the
advantage that it removes any incentive by registrars or registries to
encourage tasting so they can keep the penalty money.
That would mean the return fee would be 0.22 plus whatever the registry added to it, which would be fine by me.
The .ORG registry asked last year for permission to charge 5 cents per
deletion to any registrar that deletes more than 90% of their
registrations.
I don't like that so much. Complications invite gaming the system.
The .ORG registry asked last year for permission to charge 5 cents per
deletion to any registrar that deletes more than 90% of their
registrations.
I don't like that so much. Complications invite gaming the system.
It has the practical advantage of already having been implemented.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
The .ORG registry asked last year for permission to charge 5 cents per
deletion to any registrar that deletes more than 90% of their
registrations.
I don't like that so much. Complications invite gaming the system.
Yes, they are just going to delete 89% of their registrations.
It has the practical advantage of already having been implemented.
What is important is not if it has been implemented but how effective
it has been. But unfortunately with just one TLD, its possible that
positive info can not be relied on as given limitations bad registrants could have just moved to using other TLDs that do not have the limits).
Personally I think one way to do attempt to deal with it is to require
explanation for each and every registration that is deleted and then
look overall at types of explanations given and put additional barriers
for certain cases (i.e. paperwork, etc) plus capability of ICANN to do audits of registrars deleted domains to verify that explanations they
are given are consistent with actual activity.
Well, if they only delete 89% instead of 99.9% then to make 1,000,000 tasted registrations they will have to keep 100,000 of them, which will send a fair amount of money to the registry. Effectively making the minimum registration costs for tasting 10% of the normal cost.