[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Warehousing, TM violations & the new gTLD's



Duane said:
>> I'll tell you something simpler and more d-able that will reduce
>> warehousing -- simply require payment up-front.

Jeff replied:
>  This would certianly do what you would like to see.  But it would
>also impose a unfair sometime hardship on everyone else.  That iw why
>befor I have recomended that some modification of this be done.
>Here is an example.
>
>1.) Any wanting to register more than two Domain names in any
>    catagory must pay 50% on the ther first two in advance and
>    80 percent aon all others up to 10 domains. Beyond that 10
>    domain names 100% must be paid in advance for the remaining
>    number beyond 10.

You know what; I take back my 100% agreement with Duane Little on this issue
(all of a few minutes ago); I think that Jeff Williams' plan, or some
similar variant, may make more sense. Two things I'm not sure about:

Under the proposal, entities that have only two domain names don't have to
pay anything up front, right?

Also, does two (or 10) domain names registered by the same entity mean two
domain names owned by the entity, two domain names being registered in a
current batch, two domain names in a certain amount of time, or two domain
names that are as-yet unpaid.

I personally think that the last of the four alternatives makes the most
sense, but it makes things somewhat more confusing. If I own two domain
names right now, and I've held them for a long time and of course I've
already paid for them, I shouldn't have to pay in advance for a third,
right? However, allowing this would open the door for me to get around the
three-new-domain-names-at-once issue. If it costs me 50%+50%+80% up front to
register three domain names, I could just register the first, pay for it in
full, then register the next two with nothing up front--meaning I only need
to pay a total of 100% of a single registration up front rather than 180%.

Anyway, I like the idea, however the final execution works out.

--andi payn