Fwd: [At-Large] Strange Bedfellows

[Robin Gross]

Hi Adam,

Yes, this isn't an issue that NCUC is as hot-under-the-collar about
as other constituencies and SO's are.   From my perspective are very
open to the possibility of deleting the add/grace period and we are
also open to a re-stocking fee.   We only voted to *launch* a PDP
(i.e begin the work).   It would extremely premature to decide today
(before the studies have been done) what is the right "fix" for the
"problem" that hasn't even been sufficiently defined yet.   One
proposal that was put forward in the report was to prevent tasting by
making all registered trademarked words off-limits for domain name
registration (by any one other than the federally registered owner)!!*
$%#@!

So I am concerned about the blind and zealous desire to kill tasting
at any cost that I see coming from others.   That could be my free
expression rights left on the cutting room floor in our blind desire
to kill tasting.    I want to see the facts, the studies, the
evidence, -- and then weigh differing approaches before deciding what
policy to approve.

Robin


On Jan 8, 2008, at 6:12 AM, Adam Peake wrote:

> Milton, thanks for the answer.
>
> Not an issue I've managed to get very excited about.  For a user
> wanting to buy a meaningful/useful name, well... they aren't the
> ones involved here (those are already parked.)
>
> But I don't see the benefit argument -- If I make a mistake when
> paying for a $9 ($10, $20) item. Tough.  Not as if registering a
> name doesn't give you a few chances before clicking "pay".  That it
> was not part of any policy development process or discussion also
> makes it weak (a few DNSO or GNSO folk sitting around thinking
> "this would be nice, let's tag it on some policy process" is not
> good.)
>
> I'd suggest removing the AGP because it's bad policy and bad policy
> process. But won't get very upset either way.
>
> OK to forward your reply to the At Large list?
>
> Adam
>
>
> At 5:18 AM -0500 1/8/08, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> Was Evan at the ALAC-NCUC meeting where we discussed this at some
>> length? Has he read our complete comments? (Can't blame him if the
>> answer is no, because there are so many rounds of comments at
>> different
>> times and in different places that it would be easy to miss.
>> Robin, can
>> you dig them up?)
>>
>> First, I would recommend informing him that someone who disagrees
>> with
>> his particular position is not necessarily unconcerned about the
>> public
>> interest. Indeed, one reason we were unwilling to jump on the anti-
>> AGP
>> bandwagon was precisely that we saw only a few special interests
>> for it
>> and not a big public interest rationale. On the whole, the issue
>> affects
>> noncommercial registrants and the general public hardly at all.
>>
>> Further, his grasp of the political and economic interests seems a
>> bit
>> shaky. In our experience, it has been the registries (aside from
>> VeriSign) and in particular Afilias-associated registries who were
>> screaming most loudly about AGP. Some registries have complained
>> about
>> the cost of handling all the traffic associated with short-term
>> registrations. This is a valid argument, but it was quickly and
>> adequately addressed by imposing fees (as PIR did). If the registries
>> have stopped supporting elimination of AGP, it is probably because
>> the
>> imposition of "re-stocking fees" addresses the infrastructure burden
>> problem more than adequately.
>>
>> He should not be surprised about the Business constituency position,
>> because they are all about regulating the domain name market as
>> strongly
>> as possible to protect trademarks. Many businesses see domainers as
>> contributing to typosquatting. So they are more than happy to
>> eliminate
>> business opportunities for small speculators, regardless of whether
>> there are other ways to eliminate typosquatting (there are), just as
>> they would be more than happy to eliminate all new TLDs in order to
>> protect trademarks.
>>
>> The "possible" benefit of ADP to registrants is the one that
>> originally
>> motivated creating it: providing a cost-free way to correct mistakes.
>>
>> Our take on this issue is that the attack on AGP is basically an
>> attack
>> on domainers; i.e., on making a business out of pay per click
>> based on
>> popular domain names. We don't view domaining per se as a problem. As
>> I've said (and this may be not shared by some on the list) we are the
>> non-commercial constituency not the "anti-commercial"
>> constituency. If
>> the problems of typosquatting are addressed by litigation (and
>> they have
>> been) and the problems of registry infrastructure burden are
>> addressed
>> by the fees, we just don't see the point of eliminating AGP
>> altogether,
>> what does it accomplish that serves the public interest?




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20080108/f74f05a8/attachment.html>