<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ICANN Board Resolution Kills Domain Tasting</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.domainnamenews.com/miscellaneous/icann-board-resolution-kills-domain-tasting/1689/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.domainnamenews.com/miscellaneous/icann-board-resolution-kills-domain-tasting/1689</link>
	<description>News and Views from the Domain Name Industry</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:26:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: EH</title>
		<link>http://www.domainnamenews.com/miscellaneous/icann-board-resolution-kills-domain-tasting/1689/comment-page-1#comment-59805</link>
		<dc:creator>EH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:23:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.domainnamenews.com/?p=1689#comment-59805</guid>
		<description>Looking through the policy, online info, and ICANN&#039;s public comments, it seems no one has noticed that this policy won&#039;t end tasting.  Rather, it will simply change who &quot;wins&quot; the race for domains.  Specifically, large high-volume registrars can utilize up to 10% of their registrations for tasting.  Why should they have this advantage?  Some of these large registrars have used tasting to front-run registrations, and some are connected to a &quot;house&quot; portfolios.

As it stands, the $0.20 fee has eliminated the most egregious practices, i.e. &quot;kiting&quot;.  But the new Limits Policy just gives large registrars an unfair advantage.

Am I missing something?

Disclaimer: It makes no sense to defend squatting on trademark typos, nor all of the other problems like phishing and spam that are made simpler by the AGP.  However, I would argue that registering a typo of a generic term (or any other speculative phrase that is not a trademark issue) is not an unethical practice.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looking through the policy, online info, and ICANN&#8217;s public comments, it seems no one has noticed that this policy won&#8217;t end tasting.  Rather, it will simply change who &#8220;wins&#8221; the race for domains.  Specifically, large high-volume registrars can utilize up to 10% of their registrations for tasting.  Why should they have this advantage?  Some of these large registrars have used tasting to front-run registrations, and some are connected to a &#8220;house&#8221; portfolios.</p>
<p>As it stands, the $0.20 fee has eliminated the most egregious practices, i.e. &#8220;kiting&#8221;.  But the new Limits Policy just gives large registrars an unfair advantage.</p>
<p>Am I missing something?</p>
<p>Disclaimer: It makes no sense to defend squatting on trademark typos, nor all of the other problems like phishing and spam that are made simpler by the AGP.  However, I would argue that registering a typo of a generic term (or any other speculative phrase that is not a trademark issue) is not an unethical practice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://www.domainnamenews.com/miscellaneous/icann-board-resolution-kills-domain-tasting/1689/comment-page-1#comment-43803</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:18:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.domainnamenews.com/?p=1689#comment-43803</guid>
		<description>&quot;which should also mean that Versign and Icann will be reducing their fees</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;which should also mean that Versign and Icann will be reducing their fees</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FH</title>
		<link>http://www.domainnamenews.com/miscellaneous/icann-board-resolution-kills-domain-tasting/1689/comment-page-1#comment-43761</link>
		<dc:creator>FH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 06:46:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.domainnamenews.com/?p=1689#comment-43761</guid>
		<description>What this means is that names that are not registered in auction will be warehoused by the registrars themselves for one year and then released in auction once the domain expires.

Right now it&#039;s a merry-go-around where the registrars smile and nod while bending the public over. These registrars and ICANN in particular think they&#039;re demi-gods and can do whatever they wish. They pay lip-service and take action only when threated by lawsuits and removal of authority.

Where does one even begin to document these white collar crimes. Netsols front-running of the domains is an apt example. The current situation with ICANN not policing the registrars is a utter disgrace.

crooks, all of them. ICANN needs more govt. oversight, they&#039;re very obviously incompetent. More govt. oversight means criminal liability on the part of the registrars and the more importantly the executives within these corporations. The current system is definitely not working.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What this means is that names that are not registered in auction will be warehoused by the registrars themselves for one year and then released in auction once the domain expires.</p>
<p>Right now it&#8217;s a merry-go-around where the registrars smile and nod while bending the public over. These registrars and ICANN in particular think they&#8217;re demi-gods and can do whatever they wish. They pay lip-service and take action only when threated by lawsuits and removal of authority.</p>
<p>Where does one even begin to document these white collar crimes. Netsols front-running of the domains is an apt example. The current situation with ICANN not policing the registrars is a utter disgrace.</p>
<p>crooks, all of them. ICANN needs more govt. oversight, they&#8217;re very obviously incompetent. More govt. oversight means criminal liability on the part of the registrars and the more importantly the executives within these corporations. The current system is definitely not working.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marlon Phillips</title>
		<link>http://www.domainnamenews.com/miscellaneous/icann-board-resolution-kills-domain-tasting/1689/comment-page-1#comment-43706</link>
		<dc:creator>Marlon Phillips</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:28:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.domainnamenews.com/?p=1689#comment-43706</guid>
		<description>OK, so this means that 100&#039;s of 1000&#039;s of domains will no longer be registred per day which should also mean that Versign and Icann will be reducing their fees..... Yea right......</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, so this means that 100&#8242;s of 1000&#8242;s of domains will no longer be registred per day which should also mean that Versign and Icann will be reducing their fees&#8230;.. Yea right&#8230;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

