On 19 Apr 2016, at 1:23, Paul Smith wrote:
On 19/04/2016 06:40, Dave Warren wrote:
On 2016-04-18 10:38, Michael Peddemors wrote:
Registrars paid a lot of money to be able to offer TLD's and they
shouldn't really be punished just because they are cheaper than
other domains.
Personally, I'm going to start adding points to any TLD that offers
first-year-cheap discounts as these attract spammers and other rats
who want disposable domains but don't care about generating long-term
domains. .biz and .info poisoned their respective wells doing this,
and now others are following. I understand your point, but I
disagree: Their success with a poorly selected business model is not
my problem.
I'm not saying a TLD can't run promotions, but rather, that the
upfront cost shouldn't be it, I'd be fine with a TLD doing
second-year-free or similar.
I agree. The TLD registries need to choose - either they want quality
and a good reputation, where good customers will use their domains, so
they have at least some system in place to try to ensure the 'quality'
of their registrants (eg registrant data validation), or they want
quick money, accept any registrant and thus must accept the
consequence that their TLD is treated as trash.
(Disclaimer: $dayjob involves the domain industry)
This is really an over-simplification.
New TLDs have a lower ham:spam ratio, which comes as a consequence of
the length of time they’ve been available. Older TLDs have been around
for years, and therefore have a substantially higher amount of ham
(domains and traffic) to counter the huge amount of spam (again, in
domains and traffic). Even if all new TLDs price-matched those legacy
TLDs, the ham:spam ratio would continue to be small.
The fact that .biz and .info still exist, with more or less the same
level of abuse, is proof that blocking them is pointless. I would argue
that any improvement on these TLDs perceived “spamminess” is more
out of the growth of ham than the reduction of spam.
As an additional note, I would like to point out my belief that in this
regard, the registrar is far more important than the registry. Perhaps
it’s not clear to many in this audience, but the registry is often
ignorant of who the real registrant of a domain name is — this
information, as well as the whole interaction with the registrant lives
in the registrar. Registrars with solid anti-fraud / anti-abuse
processes tend to present few abuse incidents — at the same price
point.
Best regards
-lem
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
