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

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

I haven't seen this on the list and want to make sure it gets there.

________________________________

From: Rosette, Kristina 
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 11:09 AM
To: 'Neuman, Jeff'; Jay Westerdal; Jeffrey Eckhaus; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] IPC RFI Report


That's not the point.  If the parties advocating retention of the AGP
point to its use in the context of online fraud, cart hold,
proactive monitoring, it needs to be made clear why - in those contexts
- the names need to resolve during the AGP and, more importantly,
resolve to a page with commercial utility.
 
I keep hearing about data.  I haven't seen it.  If you have because
you're a registry, Jeff, that's great.  The rest of us have to wait
until the 3-month hold period on the registry report expires.  That's
why I posed my question about the timing.  
 
If the data can be released now, great.  If not, please don't assume
that I've seen data to which I (and everyone else) have been restricted
from seeing thus far.
 

 

________________________________

        From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 11:01 AM
        To: Jay Westerdal; Rosette, Kristina; Jeffrey Eckhaus;
gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] IPC RFI Report
        
        

        I would add Kristina that many of your paying clients would
probably disagree with the notion of having to wait five days before a
name resolves. Don't punish the legitimate purchasers of domain names
simply to curb perceived abuses by the minority of others.

         

        What I am still waiting for is why IP owners "question" whether
the PIR solution or some solution like that would be effective when the
evidence for .org demonstrates otherwise?  

         

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

        Business Development 

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

        
________________________________


        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: 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