Re: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: discussion about 'instaneous approval of domain names'

[Mike Rodenbaugh <mxrodenbaugh@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jay, to the extent this movie is relevant to our discussion, I think the key 
point is that the phone was actually paid for, before it was activated.
   
  I still find the existing RAA provision a mystery, insofar as it appears to 
never have been enforced.  Perhaps ICANN Staff can shed some light on that?

Jay Westerdal <jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
      v\:* {   BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)  }  o\:* {   BEHAVIOR: 
url(#default#VML)  }  w\:* {   BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)  }  shape {   
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)  }      @font-face {   font-family: Wingdings;  }  
@font-face {   font-family: MS Mincho;  }  @font-face {   font-family: Tahoma;  
}  @font-face {   font-family: @MS Mincho;  }  @font-face {   font-family: 
Calibri;  }  @font-face {   font-family: Verdana;  }  @font-face {   
font-family: Consolas;  }  @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 
1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; }  A:link {   mso-style-priority: 99  }  SPAN.MSOHYPERLINK 
{   mso-style-priority: 99  }  A:visited {   mso-style-priority: 99  }  
SPAN.MSOHYPERLINKFOLLOWED {   mso-style-priority: 99  }  P.MSOPLAINTEXT {   
mso-style-priority: 99  }  LI.MSOPLAINTEXT {   mso-style-priority: 99  }  
DIV.MSOPLAINTEXT {   mso-style-priority: 99  }  P {   mso-style-priority: 99  } 
 SPAN.PLAINTEXTCHAR {   mso-style-priority: 99  }  P.MsoNormal {   FONT-SIZE: 
12pt;
 MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"  }  LI.MsoNormal {   
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"  }  
DIV.MsoNormal {   FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New 
Roman"  }  A:link {   COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline  }  
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {   COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline  }  A:visited {   
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline  }  SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {   
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline  }  P.MsoPlainText {   FONT-SIZE: 10pt; 
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New"  }  LI.MsoPlainText {   
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New"  }  
DIV.MsoPlainText {   FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
"Courier New"  }  P {   FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0in; 
FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; 
mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto  }  SPAN.PlainTextChar {   FONT-FAMILY: Consolas  } 
 SPAN.EmailStyle20 {   COLOR:
 navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-style-type: personal  }  SPAN.EmailStyle21 {   
COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: Calibri; mso-style-type: personal  }  
SPAN.EmailStyle22 {   COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-style-type: 
personal-reply  }  DIV.Section1 {   page: Section1  }      Marilyn,
  In the Bourne Ultimatum Jason Bourne buys a prepaid cell phone in a train 
station. It was activated instantly. I think AT&T calls them "Go Phones".
   
  Okay.
   
  Jay

    
---------------------------------
  From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 3:15 PM
To: 'Mike Rodenbaugh'; 'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Philip Lodico'; 'Jay Westerdal'; 
'Rosette, Kristina'; 'Jeffrey Eckhaus'; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: discussion about 'instaneous approval of domain names'


  
    Let me see if I can pour some ?oil? of facts about how users encounter 
?activation? in other related sectors.
   
  Who among us have bought a new cell phone? Statistics indicate that everyone 
on this list has one, if not TWO, mobile devices that they use.
   
  Well, first, you have to obtain the mobile phone from a storefront, or some 
other mechanism; then take the phone home and charge it, then you have to dial 
a number and activate the service. If it is a blackberry or other ?smart 
device?, there may also be steps needed to forward email, etc. 
   
  NONE of this happens without a several hour delay.
   
  Okay.
   
  How about a new Blackberry? Well, obtain a new device; charge it for several 
hours, and then activate it?Several hours. 
   
  Okay, how about a new ISP service? Well, that happens within an hour IF you 
have credit card that is charged/verification of details, etc. AND you have 
connectivity already installed. For a non facilities based ASP, like a hotmail 
or yahoo!, signing up for an email account is shorter in activation, because 
the user already has the infrastructure, which took hours, to days to get 
installed. :- ) 
   
  And, oh, yeah, what about a new telephone number: okay, call the telephone 
company, or go into the mobile company storefront, and get a new phone, with a 
number? take the phone home, charge it for several hours, call a number to 
activate. 
   
  Hmmmm. I see that there are many services where consumers and even businesses 
live without instaneous access. 
   
   
  Not clear that this is an essential service to the broad diverse base of 
registrants. I agree that it is important to know what the parameters of 
predictable ?service on? status are, but am not convinced that it has to be 
within 5 minute of registration. 
   
  I know you can walk into a storefront and buy a telephone card, but you have 
to have a phone already in place to use it, and the actual phone service took 
more than 5 minutes. The ?phone card? can take 5 minutes. But without the 
overriding service, so what/ So, I?d love to hear more about where the consumer 
is getting instaneous service. Can be it exists. I just am looking for 
examples. Am not aware of them. 
   
  Note that I have made a statement that is about what I believe. And have 
experienced. I look forward to hearing about other examples of services that 
are instaneous, and there are probably some?. But I am merely noting that there 
are many that are not instaneous. 
   
  I?d be quite interested in ?no service until payment received and banked?. If 
there has to be a refund policy, it needs to be developed in a way that 
requires the registrant to take reasonable steps to fill out a form, justifying 
the request for a refund. AND, if the application requires a registrant to type 
the name twice, they will be unlikely to have a typo. 
   
  ?. J since the mere fact of retyping the same phrase twice is a quality 
control step in accurate typing.
   
  Regards,
   
  Marilyn Cade
   
      
---------------------------------
  
  From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 1:27 PM
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: 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] 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