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

[Philip Lodico <phil.lodico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jay - 
 
To clarify, by volume I am referring to domain names and not independent
registrants.  Furthermore, by large tasting registrars I am referring to the
10 or so Jay points out.  This is not meant as a sweeping generalization.

While activation would impact the number of usage days an individual gets on
their initial one year term, I think considering it is worthwhile as we
progress through this.  Activation would drastically reduce the volume and
thus the overall impact, since those 10 you reference are making up the
majority of adds/drops.

In regards to your math on ³damages², if the activation solution were to be
the way this was handled, there would need to be time spent educating
consumers which would in turn reduce the ongoing complaint calls and thus
limit long term damage.  I do not disagree though that Registrars would
incur cost to do this in the short term.

In addition, while I believe that a solution similar to the one employed by
PIR may work, as you know the landscape in the .ORG space is quite different
than that of the .COM space.  The ability to monetize traffic in the .COM
space is based upon inherent direct navigation traffic, which does not exist
on the same scale in .ORG.

Your simple solution may ultimately work, and I am for it if it does, but it
will have to reasonable economics and ratios in order to have the desired
effect of discouraging the negative aspects of tasting.

The bottom line is that it is important to consider and talk through these
different avenues, so I appreciate the comments and dialogue.

Phil Lodico


On 9/28/07 12:24 PM, "Jay Westerdal" <jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Philip,
> Your analysis are flawed on so many different levels.
>  
> The biggest impact will be on regular consumers. There are 70,000 people a day
> that register domain names. There are less then 10 people that are large scale
> domain tasters. How can effecting 10 people justify causing 70,000 days of
> lost domain registrations?  Why not stop domain tasting without effecting
> imediate resolution of domains? Why are you missing the simple solution?
>  
> Even 2 percent of these customers complaining that there domain doesn't work
> in the first 24 hours would cause about 15 minutes of busy work. Assuming
> people's time is worth $20 an hour on average. That is $7,000 a day plus
> another $1,000 resolution time. So $8,000 a day in damages. Or over $2,500,000
> dollars in damages a year.
>  
> Your trust that consumers are willing to "sacrifice immedidate gradication" is
> flawed.
>  
> The simple solution is what PIR did. Just limit the domains that can be
> deleted and the ratio will not allow domain tasting at all unless you are a
> large registrar like GoDaddy with enough adds to offset the deletes. Even
> then, GoDaddy or a large adding registrar would be limited to the number of
> domains they could taste. This is a simple solution.
>  
> Jay
> 
> 
> From: Philip Lodico [mailto:phil.lodico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 8:40 AM
> To: Jay Westerdal; Rosette, Kristina; Jeffrey Eckhaus; Neuman, Jeff;
> gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-dt-wg] IPC RFI Report
> 
> Since the non-activation of names will impact large tasting registrars (in
> terms of volume) more than it will regular domain name consumers, I think this
> is something that needs to be considered as a possible solution for the
> greater good.  
> 
> If tasting at times leads to consumer confusion and harm - I believe users may
> be willing to sacrifice immediate gratification for a greater trust in the
> space.
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/28/07 10:56 AM, "Jay Westerdal" <jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> 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  ³Other online   industries have had to develop strategies to deal
>>> with credit card  fraud²,  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:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ³If 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?²
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
> 
>