RE: [gnso-dt-wg] IPC RFI Report

["Olof Nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tim,

The underlying problem with the comments to Q 11-13 is that the BigPulse
form didn't offer comment opportunities to 11-12, only to 13. Yours was an
email entry to the ICANN site that I tried to capture in this way - perhaps
it would be better just to delete the 11-12 comments (for your entry and a
few others) in the context of the BigPulse overview, since your full
response appears publicly already on the ICANN site? At least that would
eliminate the confusion you notice. Your thoughts on that, please.

Best

Olof 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: den 28 september 2007 01:27
To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] IPC RFI Report

 

Mike, I think Jothan's summary in 4.3 is fairly accurate based on my own
dicussions with various registrars. 

 

Olof, the RFI text summaries get really confusing following Question 10.
Questions 11 and 12 are skipped and Question 13 is listed with all of the
answers for 11-13 being under it. The problem is that some of the responses,
mine included, end up looking like we were responding to 13 when in fact we
weren't. It looks like Go Daddy supports a minimum registration which we
absolutely do not. I think this needs to be clarified and cleaned up some.

 


Tim 






-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] IPC RFI Report
From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxrodenbaugh@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, September 27, 2007 2:03 pm
To: "'Rosette,  Kristina'" <krosette@xxxxxxx>,  "'Jeffrey Eckhaus'"
<jeckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,  "'Neuman,  Jeff'" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, 
<gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>

We need to document in the report how many registrars contributed to the
response in 4.3.  Was it voted on by the Registrars Constituency?

 

I am editing that section substantially, to keep it to facts rather than
policy argument as much as possible.  Curious to hear from Tim Ruiz, Margie
Milam and other registrar reps who may have comments on 4.3 as currently
drafted.

 

Thanks.

 

From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:42 AM
To: Jeffrey Eckhaus; Neuman, Jeff; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] IPC RFI Report

 

Jeff,

 

Speaking of the registrars response, when will the underlying documentation
and data for Section 4.3 be released?  I've been delaying comments pending
that information.

 

Amazon.com; iTunes

 

I keep coming back to the same question:  Even if I agree that a grace
period is needed for purposes of cart hold, fraud remedies, and proactive
monitoring, why does the name need to resolve to anything during that time?

 

Kristina 

 

 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: Jeffrey Eckhaus [mailto:jeckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 2:30 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; Neuman, Jeff; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] IPC RFI Report

Kristina,

 

The use of AGP for typos in one use of the AGP as per the Registrars
response, it is not the sole use. 

As to your question on statistics, tracking the number of refunds
specifically for typos is not a statistic we track as a business as there
many other key sales metrics that we need to monitor that are more important
to our business. That does not mean it is not significant, we just do not
feel a need to track it as we know we have the Add Grace Period for these
errors. 

If we or others did track this, we would not likely share this, as it is
proprietary information and our data is our livelihood when we are all
selling a similar product. 

 

I would also like to respond to your question below with another question.
You state "Other online industries have had to develop strategies to deal
with credit card fraud", can you name another online industries that have
successfully dealt with online fraud and how they accomplished this? If so,
we would love to know and learn these practices. 

 

You have also asked what other avenues have been explored and found
insufficient and the truth is probably very few as we have the Add Grace
Period as a legitimate and successful use, so why would we need to explore
other avenues at this time. 

 

 

Thanks

 

 

Jeff

 


  _____  


From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 2:06 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] IPC RFI Report

 

Jeff,

 

I meant to answer the other part of your question.  I can't speak for the
entire IPC at the moment..  Personally, I have yet to be persuaded that one
of the reasons provided is indeed relevant and haven't been persuaded that
the other "legitimate reasons" can be solved/addressed only by an AGP.  For
example:  

 

Where is the data on the use of AGP w/r/t typos?  If it's that important to
keep it, the data is presumably being tracked.  Show me the data.  Do all
registrars really issue refunds?  The terms of use for many either say to
the contrary or grant them the right to charge a fee

 

Other online industries have had to develop strategies to deal with credit
card fraud.  Why is the domain registration industry different?  Is a 5-day
grace period really the only answer?  

 

In terms of the product testing, why is the AGP the only answer?  What other
avenues have been explored and found insufficient?

 

Kristina 

 


  _____  


From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:35 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] IPC RFI Report

Kristina,

 

I note the last paragraph of your report states:

 

Virtually all respondents made clear that they believe the negative effects
of domain tasting far outweigh the benefits, if any, and thus believe the
best possible solution is elimination of the AGP.  

 

A question I have, and to be honestly I cant remember what the IPC survey
said, but was the following question ever posted to the IPC:

 

"If it is possible to eliminate domain name tasting while at the same time
retaining the AGP for the purposes for which it was intended, would they
still believe the best possible solution is eliminating the AGP?"

 

The reason I ask is that I believe it is possible to do both.  I believe it
is possible to eliminate (or at least drastically reduce tasting), while at
the same time allowing a certain amount of deletes for legitimate reasons.
I respectfully ask that the IPC be open to those possible solutions.  Taking
the hard line stance of eliminating the AGP at all costs, in my view, may be
counterproductive in the long run.

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & 

Business Development 

NeuStar, Inc. 
e-mail:  <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx 


  _____  


From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:09 PM
To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-dt-wg] IPC RFI Report

 

All, 

The attached document contains a summary of the results of the IPC RFI.
(Olof, I'll send you a one or two sentence summary for the beginning.)

Please note that the IPC RFI questions in draft 1.4 are not the questions as
posed.  The correct set is the one I posted earlier today.

Kristina