ICANN to Add Anti Front Running Charge?

shashib writes to tell us that ICANN is considering a new $0.20 per-transaction fee for large numbers of domain registrations in order to curtail domain tasting abuse. Network Solutions, previously accused of front-running, is offering their support of the new approach and promises to remove the security measures that caused such a commotion back in January. "Because of the prevalence of these practices, earlier this year Network Solutions enacted an opt-in domain protection measure for our customers that reserves available domains for four days. If ICANN adopts the anti-tasting provision, Network Solutions will feel safe in discontinuing its service since the non-refundable fee will deflate domain taster's profits and provide a substantial blow to front runners who use and sell search data for tasting purposes."

Comments

Still won't feel safe

[the4thdimension]

Probably won't do much to deflate the use of this by registrar's that are in a perfect position to do this. They need to lock down about 50 domains without a sale before they lose money... that's quite a few domains. If they get a sale in there somewhere, it was worth it on some level.

NTM, they will likely just find some way to push this cost off onto the customer as a "service fee" or the like.

Why not every time?

[khasim]

Why only for "large numbers of domain registrations"?

For the average person checking a domain, 20 cents is nothing. I'd be happy to pay that to put a temporary "hold" on a domain I was considering.

Re:Why not every time?

[poetmatt]

This has 0 to do with money.

ICANN makes plenty and does just fine.

If you want to buy a domain you can do that the same as always. Want abdjiophgnbio.net, .com, etc, go buy it and pay for it. No surcharge.

However, want to prevent someone from using that domain infinitely for free? Not anymore. This is what it prevents.

It wasn't that someone could hold a domain for a week while they decide to get it that was the issue. It was that they would continually do this between shell companies for a lifetime, until someone pays for it, at no charge to the abuser holding the domain name. Meaning you could automate enough to hold every domain in the world if you had the resources.

To cost them money means its not free, and you need to sell a much higher amount of domains held. The average consumer paying 20 cents is nothing. The average squatter paying 40 bucks for 200 domains, is more in line with the "hey, quit jacking the market" idea.

Also, had this not occurred, what makes you think another company wouldn't do the same?

Stating that this is to make money is obviously not even remotely understanding the issue at hand.

What of bulk squatters?

[kiehlster]

I just want to see those spammy squatters get a punch in the face one of these days so I can help a friend buy his domain back. There should be a fee imposed on perpetually parked domains. The whole practice of buying expired domains and then holding them ransom for years is so irritating, almost as much as front-running.

ObTrans: Fine, we'll stop being mafia

[leto]

The only reason Network Solutions will stop domain tasting ("we will protect you for money, or else we will have your knee cap") is because ICANN is putting a stop to it. They never "protected" customers, they reamed in the profits of domain tasting.

and as long as people still pay $35/year to them for domains because they don't know the old monopoly has died, NetSol will play games like these to cash in on that. Just like they sent former customers those fake "renewal" invoices to try and fraud people into going back to them.

Translation

[Gewalt]

Market-Speak-Translation: Spammers make us rich, and we are not willing to take measures that could potentially damage this lucrative relationship. But we are willing to pretend.