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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxrodenbaugh@xxxxxxxxx>]

Please explain how 'payment is guaranteed by domain tasters', when they
delete and do not pay for 95+% of the domains they register, habitually,
month after month?  What about the final proviso of sec. 3.7.4, obligation
to pay must become final and non-revocable upon activation?

 

Payment is gaurenteed by Domain Tasters. However anyone is allowed a refund
if they delete the domain within 5 days. So I don't think that would work
but I could be wrong. How would a registrar test the EPP registry without
being able to resolve the domain?

 

  _____  

From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mxrodenbaugh@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 10:27 AM
To: 'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Philip Lodico'; 'Jay Westerdal'; 'Rosette, Kristina';
'Jeffrey Eckhaus'; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] IPC RFI Report

All, I appreciate the debate about substantive solutions, even if it is
outside the scope of our work at moment.

 

What about keeping domains deactivated until payment?  That would allow
anyone to register and immediately use a domain if they pay for it, but
would not allow commercial tasting.  There is already an RAA provision on
this point, does anyone know why it is not enforced and appears, in the
context of commercial domain tasting, to be meaningless?

 

3.7.4 Registrar shall not activate any Registered Name unless and until it
is satisfied that it has received a reasonable assurance of payment of its
registration fee. For this purpose, a charge to a credit card, general
commercial terms extended to creditworthy customers, or other mechanism
providing a similar level of assurance of payment shall be sufficient,
provided that the obligation to pay becomes final and non-revocable by the
Registered Name Holder upon activation of the registration.

 

From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 9:58 AM
To: Philip Lodico; Jay Westerdal; Rosette, Kristina; Jeffrey Eckhaus;
gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] IPC RFI Report

 

Philip,

 

You first sentence is exactly the type of sweeping generalization that
should be avoided.  What basis do you have to make that statement?

 

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

Business Development 

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

  _____  

From: Philip Lodico [mailto:phil.lodico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 11:40 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]
<mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx%5d>  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]
<mailto:jeckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxx%5d>  
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]
<mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx%5d>  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]
<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx%5d>  
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>
<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>   

  

 

  _____  



From:  owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
<mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx%5d>  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