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

["Jay Westerdal" <jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Are you asking why a domain name with the term "itunes" or "amazon" must
resolve?

  _____  

From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 7:58 AM
To: Jay Westerdal; Jeffrey Eckhaus; Neuman, Jeff; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] IPC RFI Report


Jay,
 
That wasn't the question I asked.  My question was directed at resolution of
domain names in the context of cart hold, online fraud, and proactive
monitoring.  Those are the contexts in which I don't understand why the
names must resolve.  
 
Kristina 


  _____  

From: Jay Westerdal [mailto:jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 10:56 AM
To: Rosette, Kristina; 'Jeffrey Eckhaus'; 'Neuman, Jeff';
gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] IPC RFI Report


Kristina,
Registries have gone through a lot of trouble to enable domains to resolve
within 5 minutes of activation. This reduces tech support and angry
customers who expect use of their domain name for 365 days instead of 364
like it was previously. To delay resolution of the domain is against the
common believe that registrants buy domains to resolve them. It would be the
same as going into a candy store and told that you can buy candy but you
must wait 24 hours to eat it.
 
Jay

  _____  

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