Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...

[Robert Bonomi <bonomi () mail r-bonomi com>]

> From owner-nanog () merit edu  Mon Aug 13 20:15:50 2007
> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:37:09 -0500
> From: Carl Karsten <carl () personnelware com>
> To: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
>
>
> J Bacher wrote:
> > Carl Karsten wrote:
> >
> > > > That is, if you extend domains on credit w/o any useful accountability
> > > > of the buyer and this results in a pattern of criminality then the
> > > > liability for that fraud should be shared by the seller. 
> > >
> > > I am not sure tasting is criminal or fraud.
> >
> > You got what you ordered. You used it.  You pay for it.  It's that simple.
>
> That doesn't make anything criminal or fraud any more than free samples.  If a 
> registrar wants to give a refund, I don't see anything wrong with that.
>
> It is not even close to that simple,

In and of itself, 'tasting' is neither criminal, nor fraudulent.

*HOWEVER*, available evidence suggests that a large proportion of 'tasting'
_is_ done "in furtherance/support of" criminal/fraudulent activities.

Registry operator data indicates that less than _six-tenths of one perecent_
of 'tasted' domains are kept by the taster.

Analysis of data from another registry operator suggests that that operator
is now processing roughly 3.25 _million_ *unpalatable* (i.e., _will_ be
returned) 'tasting' domain registrations =per=day=. 

IF we postulate there are 100 million registered names with that operator,
then the annualized number of _returned_ 'tasting' registrations is around
TEN TIMES the total number of registered domain names.

_IF_ the registry operator is at least breaking even on the entire registration
process -- 'real domains' plug 'tasting' -- then it would seem that the 
registry-operator fee for registration of a domain registration could be 
reduced _by_a_factor_of_ten_, if tasting was the same price as a real 
registration.

On the other hand, if the free tasting is 'out of hand' to the point where
registry operators are 'in the red' due to the 'incremental' costs thereof,
*that* problem also needs to be addressed.  Life could be _really_ interesting
if a registry operator contract came up for renewal, and _nobody_ bid.

Anybody with _reasonable_ "plan ahead" skills can live with a week between
name registration submission, and the name going 'live' -- given that they do
know, _immediately_ that the registration is successful.  Those who have
'urgent' need should pay a premium for 'expidited' service -- and those who
have a _legitimate_ need for such service will not balk at paying a 
significant premium for that service. It _IS_ worth 'big bucks' to them,
because, even at that price, it is '_much_ cheaper than the alternative'. 

I'd suggest:
  1) one week latency between registration and entry into the TLD nameservers.
  2) 50% (of 1-year registration fee) 'penalty' for cancelling the registration
     before it hits the TLD servers.
  3) $250 'surcharge' (to registrant) for 'immediate' _irrevocable_ recording 
     in the TLD nameservers,  25% of that surcharge to be retained by the
     registrar, 25% to the registry operator, and 50% to IANA.