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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Jay.   
 
Just so I'm clear - the refunds referenced in the statement are *not*
refunds attributable to typos - correct?  (I'm not discounting it; I
simply want to make sure I consider it in the appropriate context.)
 
 


________________________________

        From: Jay Westerdal [mailto:jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 10:52 AM
        To: Rosette, Kristina; 'Neuman, Jeff'; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] IPC RFI Report
        
        
        Kristina, Here is a statement with hard data: 
         
        "As CEO of Spry Hosting, Inc. We commonly request refunds on
domains we believe have been placed by credit card thieves. eNom is the
registrar that serves Spry and they allow us refunds on those domains.
They only allow refunds to resellers that have a large volume of domains
being purchased. We have 2 days to request a refund rather then 5 days.
The domain is then deleted. It is common for us to request refunds on
about 1 or 2 percent of the domains. With a profit margin of $1 per
domain. That means we save $14 of fraud for every $86 of profit."

________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
        Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:06 AM
        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: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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