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.

Re:Still won't feel safe

[mabhatter654]

this is not a new fee! ICANN is just making ITS share used to fund DNS and such non-refundable. Regular users won't see a thing change. That means any registar that wants it's names on root DNS will have to pay the money. They already pay it, they just won't get it back in 3 days if you don't want the domain.

This keeps domain registars honest, because in hundreds of thousands of domains they'll have to collect this and not let it slide because technically THEY owe ICANN the money.

Second, in large volume this will add enough "treading water" that spammers and such will stop the practice. Either they will keep the names, or pay the money. Right now they are cycling thru names every 3 days so they don't have to pay. Paying 20 cents every time they switch will cost more than registering in just a few months.

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.

LOL

[protolith]

ICANN has domane tastin fee?

Fuck NS

[revmoo]

I think what bothered me the most about Network Solutions "protecting me" from domain tasters is that they were actually participating in the very behavior they were claiming to protect users from. Network Solutions are a bunch of assholes.

They actually fed me some wrong information on a domain the other day (they read back the right spelling but punched in the wrong spelling(on two separate phone calls)) leading me on a wild goose chase and wasting my entire day. So then I decided to transfer the domain to a competant registrar and they sent me an email saying that the domain was not eligible for transfer because of "fraudulent activity on the account."

Well, isn't the entire domain transfer process designed to protect against domain slamming already? And it works just fine if you ask me. Network Solutions are just trying to keep customers through whichever means necessary.

So instead of calling us and saying "Hey, we think someone is trying to steal your domain," they sent an automated email and then refused to respond to me (I sent 7 emails spanning two days and never got a single response). If they were truly concerned about fraud wouldn't they have picked up the phone to confirm the transfer rather than just blocking it outright?

Finally, the only way we were actually able to get the transfer to go through was by calling an Exec, whose number I found after some extensive research. What about the poor customers who can't find the magic "executive hotline?"

I reiterate my previous point; fuck Network Solutions. I will suggest to every client I have in the future to transfer their domains away from NS for their shady, shady business practices.

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.

In other words

[commodoresloat]

ICANN has spamburgers?

Clarification about how ICANN charge may help

[solprovider]

Your post was good, but failed to mention how unending domain-tasting works. You also mention squatters; this charge will not affect "squatters" since squatters buy domains.

The current system allows a domain to be used (tasted) for up to 5 days without charge. The purpose of this policy was to allow free reversal of mistaken registrations. ICANN currently charges $0.20 per domain registration (changed in 2007 from $0.25.) The policy change is the charge will not be refunded if the domain is released within five days.

Current Problem #1: Somebody noticed the ability to check expired domains for traffic that could become profitable by advertising on previously used domains. If enough (maybe one visit?) traffic reaches a domain in the first five days, the domain is bought in the expectation that the advertising revenue from the domain will more than offset the cost of buying the domain. This is one variant of the "squatter". [Other variants are buying domains that may become valuable e.g. names of potential celebrities, and buying domains similar to popular domains e.g. slashdit.org.]

Current Problem #2: A few companies doing #1 can keep a domain from ever returning to the public. A company tastes all expiring domains. If the first company releases a domain at five days, another company tastes the repeatedly-expired domain. The domain would eventually be released to the public if the companies excluded recently tasted domains, but no reason existed to encourage this practice since no cost is incurred for tasting a domain once or multiple times. Currently, most expired ".com" domains enter this "constantly tasted, never bought" state.

[From memory of previously research on this issue] Three companies in Florida at least connected by sharing legal representation are "tasting" 20 million domains. A domain can pass amongst these companies indefinitely without incurring any costs.

The new policy is designed to stop this practice. Indefinitely tasting those 20 million domains would incur the $0.20 charge every 5 days: $4 million every 5 days = $292 million per year. The cost to a registrar for buying a domain is ~$7. With the new charge, buying a domain for one year has the same cost as tasting a domain for only half of a year.

One of two possible outcomes can be expected:
1. The cost of buying the domains is more than the domain-tasting companies are willing to pay so the domains are released to the public.
2. The domains generate more than $7 per year so the domain-tasting companies buy the domains and become domain-squatting companies. Tasting a domain will cost $14 per year. Buying a domain costs $7 per year and simplifies the system by removing the need to change DNS settings every 5 days (although that system must have been automated long ago.)

Every article about the policy change assumes the first outcome -- more than 20 million domains will become available during the week after this policy is effected. I do not know if the profitability of these companies depends on free domain-tasting. The companies may still be profitable with a new $140 million per year expense -- owning 20 million domains at $7 each per year. If so, nothing would change except ICANN "earns" more (and those three companies could merge since the benefit of being separate entities would be lost.)