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

["Jay Westerdal" <jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kristina,
No, they are not typos. The domains were purchased with a fraudulent or
stolen credit card. We are charged for the transaction by eNom but if we
spot the bad transaction they allow us to request a deletion of the domain
by manually emailing them.
 
Jay

  _____  

From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 7:53 AM
To: Jay Westerdal; Neuman, Jeff; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] IPC RFI Report


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:  <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