[NA-Discuss] [Fwd: Re: [registrars] OUTCOMES REPORT OF THE GNSO AD HOC GROUP ON DOMAIN NAME TASTING]

[Ross Rader]

Alan Greenberg wrote:

> Part of this hinges on the definition we use for "reasonable 
> assurance of payment". If we mean that they are sure that they will 
> get paid and get to KEEP the money, then domain tasting violates 
> 3.4.7. If it means that they will get paid at the end of the month 
> for all names for which money is truly owed, then domain tasting is 
> probably not a violation.

What tweaked my interest was the combination of "reasonable assurance" 
and "non-revocable". Meaning that if a registration request is processed 
for a registrant, that the registrar is required to take money for it at 
some point. Simply deleting the transaction and telling ICANN "oh, we 
didn't really want those 4 million registrations" doesn't appear to be 
an option from my read - there was never a "reasonable assurance" (in 
fact, most certainly, there is a contract of some type stating that the 
taster *won't* have to pay for the vast majority of the registrations) 
and the transactions are by definition "revocable".

Even if this isn't the 100% solution (or 10% solution) as you and others 
have pointed, this is solvable without a PDP. If Verisign were to 
implement a restocking fee, or ICANN were to stop exempting these 
transactions from their budget collections, the practice would 
effectively stop.

It would be helpful for the GNSO Council to hear about the ALAC 
position(s) when it considers this issue at the next council meeting.

-ross