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

["Jothan Frakes" <jfrakes@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mike-

 

The contribution of 4.3 from the registrars on non-tasting uses of AGP
that would be impacted was not voted on by the RC.

 

I will submit it for comments to the RC-List.

 

On a separate response, are you also editing other sections to keep
facts rather than policy argument?    The intent was to illustrate the
degrees of impact of each of the A, B, C example solutions upon each of
the stated AGP uses, and to ensure that these are strongly considered.
Was there something out of band?

 

-Jothan

 

Jothan Frakes

  

Oversee Domain Services

......................................................

 

515 S. Flower Street, Suite 4400

Los Angeles, CA 90071

direct +1.213.925.5206

cell +1.206.355.0230

jfrakes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

www.domainsponsor.com <http://www.domainsponsor.com>  

 

Confidentiality Warning: This e-mail contains information intended only
for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of
this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any
dissemination, publication or copying of this e-mail is strictly
prohibited. The sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss,
disruption or damage to your data or computer system that may occur
while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this e-mail. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by
return e-mail. Thank you and have a nice day.  No lawyers were harmed in
the creation of this disclaimer.

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:03 PM
To: 'Rosette, Kristina'; 'Jeffrey Eckhaus'; 'Neuman, Jeff';
gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] IPC RFI Report

 

We need to document in the report how many registrars contributed to the
response in 4.3.  Was it voted on by the Registrars Constituency?

 

I am editing that section substantially, to keep it to facts rather than
policy argument as much as possible.  Curious to hear from Tim Ruiz,
Margie Milam and other registrar reps who may have comments on 4.3 as
currently drafted.

 

Thanks.

 

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