<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV>Danny,</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Thanks for your helpful comments. I've revised the statement so as to not advocate for any particular approach at this stage (including the PIR approach), so the PDP can do the work of making the appropriate recommendations.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Best,</DIV><DIV>Robin</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Here's a slightly revised of the statement:</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><P class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center;"><SPAN style=""><FONT class="Apple-style-span" size="6"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 21.3333px;"><B>Statement</B></SPAN></FONT><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center;"><B>of the</B><O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center;"><SPAN style=""><FONT class="Apple-style-span" size="6"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 21.3333px;"><B>Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) </B></SPAN></FONT><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><P class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center;"><B>on</B><O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center;"><SPAN style=""><FONT class="Apple-style-span" size="6"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 21.3333px;"><B>Domain Name Tasting</B></SPAN></FONT><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P><DIV style="text-align: center;border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; padding-top: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-bottom: 1pt; padding-left: 0in; "><P class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center;border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; padding-top: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; ">6 December 2007<O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center;border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; padding-top: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; "><B> </B><O:P></O:P></P></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count:1"> </SPAN></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal">The Final Outcomes Report<A style="mso-footnote-id:ftn1" href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><SPAN class="MsoFootnoteReference"><SPAN style="mso-special-character:footnote">[1]</SPAN></SPAN></A> of the ad hoc group on domain name tasting suggests a growing trend of registrants exploiting ICANN’s Add Grace Period (the “AGP”) to receive a full refund on the cost of registration by canceling their domain name registrations within five days.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The AGP may have been adopted upon the assumption that all commercial uses of a domain name would require registration for a period longer than five days.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Certain registrants, however, have discovered that they can profit from repeated use of extremely short-term registrations through the use of pay-per-click advertising or otherwise.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>A coordinated response by ICANN may be appropriate to close this loophole.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This response, however, should not be disproportionate to the problem nor stem from any misconception of the issue.</DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"> <O:P></O:P></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count:1"> </SPAN>Insofar as some registrants are exploiting the AGP to operate without paying any registrations costs, they are effectively forcing the registries to subsidize them.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This was clearly not the intended use of the AGP, and action by ICANN may be appropriate to counter this growing practice.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It remains to be seen, however, if the AGP should be removed in its entirely.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The ad hoc group report indicates that the AGP may provide benefits to both registrants and registrars, and so completely eliminating the AGP risks eliminating these benefits as well.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>However, any reported benefits of the AGP are disputed and further elaboration is needed before recommending specific action.</DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"> <O:P></O:P></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count:1"> </SPAN>One possible approach may be similar to that adopted by the Public Interest Registries (PIR) — the imposition of a modest ‘excess deletion’ fee.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This approach could penalize those registrars with heavy deletions, thus forcing them to adopt policies that prevent registrants from exploiting the AGP.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Since registrants looking to avoid paying registration costs will naturally flock to those registrars least vigilant against this abuse, registrars would have a substantial incentive to be vigilant against creative disguises of these practices.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Yet unlike directly imposing a fee on all short-term registrations, this approach gives registrars significant flexibility to adopt effective practices tailored to their customer base and business model, and preserves the other advantages of the AGP.</DIV><P class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center;"> <O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center;"><B>Intellectual Property Issues</B><O:P></O:P></P><DIV class="MsoNormal"> <O:P></O:P></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count:1"> </SPAN>The intellectual property issues discussed in the ad-hoc group's final report warrant special attention.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In this context, “intellectual property” refers almost exclusively to trade and service marks, which are often referred to collectively as “trademarks.”<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The vast majority of the respondents to the RFI identified themselves as either intellectual property rights owners (37.93%) or representatives of intellectual property rights owners (51.23%).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Consequently, intellectual property rights feature prominently in the responses.</DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"> <O:P></O:P></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count:1"> </SPAN>The problem which domain tasting presents to trademark holders is not that the AGP creates a loophole which makes otherwise infringing activity legal.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If a registrant makes use of a trademark in a manner that constitutes infringement, the holder of that trademark is protected through international treaty, the laws of various nations, and through ICANN's own Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>These protections still apply even if the period of registration is very brief.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The problem is instead one of enforcement.</DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"> <O:P></O:P></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count:1"> </SPAN>This distinction should be kept in mind by the GNSO and by any subsequent working group established to tackle this issue.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Many of the responses to the RFI listed problems such as “erosion of brand names,” “erosion of reputation” and “loss of revenues [through] diversion of traffic” as disadvantages to domain tasting.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>These are problems with infringement, not with domain tasting.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>While it may be appropriate for ICANN to consider whether its policies unduly encourage infringement or impede enforcement of intellectual property rights, it would be a mistake to assume that a revised policy on domain tasting will stamp out short term infringement or that all domain tasting necessarily infringes.</DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"> <O:P></O:P></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count:1"> </SPAN>Insofar as the AGP allows a registrant to use a domain for a very short time at no cost it does provide an incentive to a prospective infringer to operate in a manner that frustrates enforcement of trademark rights.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This incentive can be removed by implementing a modest restocking fee where no corrective motive can be shown for the deletion.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Because the bulk of deletions come from a handful of registrars and because registration fees are only likely to deter an infringer who operates a large number of sites, the approach adopted by PIR (option “C” on the RFI), is particularly worth further consideration.</DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"> <O:P></O:P></DIV><P class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center;"><B>The Sample Zone File Data Study</B><O:P></O:P></P><DIV class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: auto;"> <O:P></O:P></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count:1"> </SPAN>ICANN should be particularly careful in crafting any test to identify infringing activity.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>One proposal in the ad hoc group's report was to determine the percentage of domain tasting that infringed upon trademarks by comparing a sample of deletions to a list of trademarks registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This method was termed the “sample zone file data study.”<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This method would result in erroneous and excessive findings of infringement because it stems from a fundamental misconception of trademark law.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Specifically, it relies upon an erroneous assumption that any unauthorized use of a registered trademark is unlawful.</DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"> <O:P></O:P></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count:1"> </SPAN>Trademark law does not categorically ban use of a trademark without the permission of the owner.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Instead, it prohibits uses of a trademark which deceive or confuse the consumer.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Where there is no confusion, there is no infringement.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Thus, trademark law does not prohibit the use of the same name or symbol by companies in different fields of commerce, and is limited in terms of its geographical reach.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Therefore a test for infringement based solely on the presence of a word that has been registered with any trademark office would erroneously conclude that many lawful business uses are infringing.</DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"> <O:P></O:P></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count:1"> </SPAN>This is easily illustrated by examining one registered trademark.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The USPTO lists 125 live registered wordmarks which contain the word “Acme.”<A style="mso-footnote-id:ftn2" href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><SPAN class="MsoFootnoteReference"><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote">[2]</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Many of these are simply the word “Acme” with little or no graphical embellishment.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Yet hundreds of Corporations, Limited Partnerships, and Limited Liability Companies with names containing the word “Acme” have been registered with the California Secretary of State,<A style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3" href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><SPAN class="MsoFootnoteReference"><SPAN style="mso-special-character:footnote">[3]</SPAN></SPAN></A> to say nothing of General Partnerships or unincorporated Sole Proprietorships in California or business entities in other jurisdictions.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>While a few of these businesses may be infringing upon the trademarks of others, the vast majority are undoubtedly operating without any consumer confusion.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Moreover, it may be possible to start a new business incorporating the word “Acme” without infringing upon any of those trademarks registered.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Under the sample zone data file study, however, any domain incorporating the word “Acme” would be inferred to be infringing merely because this word has been registered with the USPTO.</DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"> <O:P></O:P></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count:1"> </SPAN>More significantly, non-commercial uses of a registered trademark would also be determined to be infringing under the test proposed.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Under U.S. Law, non-commercial use is particularly unlikely to be found to infringe because there is little chance of confusion.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Thus a website critical of Jerry Falwell which used a common misspelling of his domain name (“Fallwell.com” for “Falwell.com”) was ruled to not infringe upon his trademark because the creator intended “<A name="mDocumentText_ctl00_mTextDisplay"></A>only to provide a forum to criticize ideas, not to steal customers.”<A style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4" href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><SPAN class="MsoFootnoteReference"><SPAN style="mso-special-character:footnote">[4]</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Since on-line critics of businesses frequently incorporate the name of the criticized business into their domain names (e.g. “paypalsucks.com,” “microsoftsucks.org,” etc.) false findings of infringement are particularly likely under the sample zone file data study discussed in the report.</DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"> <O:P></O:P></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count:1"> </SPAN>To be sure, an argument can be made that non-infringing domains are less likely to be deleted during the AGP.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If that is the case, then it is less likely that these legal uses of registered trademarks would significantly skew the sample zone file data study's conclusions.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It would be a mistake, however, to use that argument to justify the proposed test.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This test is intended to determine whether infringing use predominates in the practice of domain tasting.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>To argue that a use of a trademark is probably infringing because it is deleted during the AGP is to assume the outcome the test is intended to determine—a logical fallacy known as “begging the question.”</DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"> <O:P></O:P></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count:1"> </SPAN>More importantly, ICANN should be careful not to establish a precedent that this fundamentally flawed test establishes infringement.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Given the difficulties inherent in enforcing trademark rights against domain tasters, it is possibly that some sort of mechanism to screen-out infringing use will be discussed during the policy development process.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The test proposed for the sample zone file data study would be manifestly inadequate for this purpose in that it would prevent a great deal of legitimate use.</DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"> <O:P></O:P></DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count:1"> </SPAN>This last point is particularly significant in light of the fact that trademark law is still adapting to commerce over the Internet.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>For example, while some U.S. Courts have held that a bad faith intent to make money from a domain containing a famous trademark is sufficient to establish infringement, others have held that such a use must be in connection with some form of goods or service.<A style="mso-footnote-id:ftn5" href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><SPAN class="MsoFootnoteReference"><SPAN style="mso-special-character:footnote">[5]</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>ICANN should not take it upon itself to decide these issues for the courts and legislatures of every country.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The delicate balance of competing public policies inherent in intellectual property law should instead be left to the courts and political processes to work out.</DIV><DIV class="MsoNormal"> <O:P></O:P></DIV><P class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center;"><B>Conclusion</B><O:P></O:P></P><P class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center;"> <O:P></O:P></P><DIV class="MsoNormal"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count:1"> </SPAN>Further investigation within the GNSO is needed and action may be required to curb abusive domain name tasting.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>As the GNSO takes the next step in dealing with this problem it must be careful to ensure that the issue remains properly framed rather than assuming than ICANN is responsible for or capable of preventing all short-term trademark infringement on the web.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Moreover, while further investigation, discussion, and action is warranted at this point, the proposed sample zone file data study should not be undertaken because it relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of trademark law and sets a dangerous precedent as to what ICANN will consider to be infringing use.<A name="headerTitleTruncate11"></A><A name="headerTitleTruncate3"></A><A name="headerTitleTruncate1"></A><A name="headerTitleTruncate31"></A></DIV><DIV style="mso-element:footnote-list"><BR clear="all"><DIV style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn1"><DIV class="MsoFootnoteText"><A style="mso-footnote-id:ftn1" href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><SPAN class="MsoFootnoteReference"><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote">[1]</SPAN></SPAN></A> Final Outcomes Report available at: <A href="http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final.pdf</A></DIV><DIV class="MsoFootnoteText"> <O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV><DIV style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn2"><DIV class="MsoFootnoteText"><A style="mso-footnote-id:ftn2" href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><SPAN class="FootnoteCharacters"><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote">[2]</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN style="mso-tab-count:1"> </SPAN>See <A href="http://www.uspto.gov">http://www.uspto.gov</A></DIV></DIV><DIV style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn3"><DIV class="MsoFootnoteText"><A style="mso-footnote-id:ftn3" href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><SPAN class="FootnoteCharacters"><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote">[3]</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN style="mso-tab-count:1"> </SPAN>See <A href="http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/list.html">http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/list.html</A></DIV></DIV><DIV style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn4"><DIV class="MsoFootnoteText"><A style="mso-footnote-id:ftn4" href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><SPAN class="FootnoteCharacters"><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote">[4]</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN style="mso-tab-count:1"> </SPAN>See <I>Lamparello v. Falwell</I><SPAN style="">, 420 F.3d 309 (5<FONT class="Apple-style-span" size="2"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 10px;">th</SPAN></FONT> Cir. 2005) at 315.</SPAN></DIV></DIV><DIV style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn5"><DIV class="MsoFootnoteText"><A style="mso-footnote-id:ftn5" href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><SPAN class="FootnoteCharacters"><SPAN style="mso-special-character: footnote">[5]</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN style="mso-tab-count:1"> </SPAN>Compare <I>Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.Com, Inc.</I><SPAN style="">, 177 F.Supp.2d 635 (E.D.Mich. 2001) with </SPAN><I>Intermatic Inc. v. Toeppen, </I><SPAN style="">947 F.Supp 1227(N.D.Ill. 1996).</SPAN></DIV><DIV class="MsoFootnoteText"><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV class="MsoFootnoteText">==========================================</DIV></DIV></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On Dec 5, 2007, at 4:17 PM, Danny Younger wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Robin,</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Thank you for the work that you have done on this</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">topic.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>Having served as a representative on the</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">domain tasting ad-hoc working group, allow me to make</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">the following observations:</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">(1)<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>You cite the five purportedly legitimate uses of</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">the Add Grace Period as stipulated by the registrars</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">in the ad hoc report; lets review them as I find none</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">of their justifications to have sufficient merit:</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">AGP Use 1: Correction of typographical errors made by</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">registrant -- with all the redundancies built into the</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">registration process (including all the upsell pages)</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">the AGP is no longer needed to dealt with this remote</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">possibility.</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">AGP Use 2: Cart “hold” to provide access to domain</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">names -- the concept of reserving a domain at the</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">registry once it gets "looked up" by a user (that</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">hasn't paid for the registration) is an abomination. <SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">As stated in the White Paper:<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>"The failure to make a</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">domain name applicant pay for its use of a domain name</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">has encouraged cyberpirates and is a practice that</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">should end as soon as possible."<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">AGP Use 3: Fraud remedies -- arrangements regarding</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">the settlement of fraud claims can be built into the</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Credits section in the Service Level Agreement within</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">the relevant registry-registrar agreements; it need</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">not be part of the AGP.</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">AGP Use 4: Monitoring, testing and development of</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">systems -- This argument seeks to make the "cost of</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">doing business" a registry subsidy.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>The argument is</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">weak and can readily be rejected.</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">AGP Use 5: Addressing Registrant ‘Buyer’s Remorse’ --</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">a fine example of BS.</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">The best way of dealing with the current spate of</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">domain tasting is to eliminate the Add Grace Period;</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">this option is preferable to all others. <SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Even the PIR approach is amenable to gaming as</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">registrars can adjust their business and pricing</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">models to compensate for the extra miniscule charges</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">that are being imposed -- five cents is not a</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">sufficient barrier, and even a twenty cent</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">registrar-level transaction fee may not be sufficient</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">to stem the tide as registrants have been willing to</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">pay registrars .2 Euro (see the NASK domain tasting</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">program launched 3 September) for the privilege of</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">tasting a domain -- here in the States, programs such</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">as Traffic Club already charge 25 cents for tasting --</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">what we don't want to do is to create another new</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">opportunity for registrars to game the system and</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">thereby allow domain tasting to continue. <SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">If you take a close look at the .org Monthly registry</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">reports, you will see that capitoldomains deleted</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">1,026,628 domains in .org during the month of May --</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">they certainly weren't deterred by the PIR fee</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">assessment.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>Accordingly, I disagree with your</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">conclusion that "Of the proposed responses to the</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">growing practice of domain name tasting, the most</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">appropriate may be the imposition of a modest excess</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">deletion fee."<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>Simply put, it won't work.</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">The only safe course of action is to advocate for the</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">complete elimination of the AGP -- the "modest</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">restocking fee" approach can and will be gamed.</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">(2) By the way, with regard to your reference to</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">phishing/pharming, I should point out that the APWG</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">study found no correlation between phishing and domain</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">tasting -- see</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><A href="http://www.antiphishing.org/reports/DNSPWG_ReportDomainTastingandPhishing.pdf">http://www.antiphishing.org/reports/DNSPWG_ReportDomainTastingandPhishing.pdf</A></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">The APWG does note that "tasting affects anti-phishing</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">efforts. Members of the anti-phishing community have</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">had to increase their infrastructure to account for</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">the larger number of potential phish sites that are</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">being registered by tasters, and this impedes</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">anti-phishing efforts and increases the cost of</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">detecting and mitigating the fraudulent behavior."</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">regards,</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Danny</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>____________________________________________________________________________________</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Be a better friend, newshound, and<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>Try it now.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN><A href="http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ">http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ</A><SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><DIV> <SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>IP JUSTICE</DIV><DIV>Robin Gross, Executive Director</DIV><DIV>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA</DIV><DIV>p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451</DIV><DIV>w: <A href="http://www.ipjustice.org">http://www.ipjustice.org</A> e: <A href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</A></DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>