RE: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow
Jeff, as you have pointed out, many registries do not have an AGP. Presumably they have developed other cost-effective mechanisms to address fraud and other legitimate AGP-type applications.
That being said, if we can use the existing AGP-mechanisms for those registries that already have them, and still eliminate the more unsavory uses, I can readily support it.
Alan At 25/02/2008 09:41 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
Avri, If there is a truly a consensus policy to get rid of the AGP, then how are the registries going to offer a refund service on an objective basis without a highly manual process costing much more than a $6.42 cents per domain name. In other words, the only system of refunds that would not dramatically increase the costs of provisioning domain names for registries and registrars is an automated grace period. I believe "market forces" are what led to the Add-Grace Period in the first place. In addition, "market forces" are what led to NeuStar and Afilias' proposal. However, if there is a consensus policy to get rid of the AGP, then in essence, we are taking market forces out of the equation. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development NeuStar, Inc. e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 9:22 AM To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow Hi, I cannot make the meeting tomorrow, I have one of my rare, these days anyway, paying jobs (IGF) and will be busy all week. So I figured I would send a note indicating my personal point of view in this issue. From a personal point of view, I wonder if doing away with the grace period is not the right thing to do. This would leave it up to the registries as to what sort of refund service they provide to the registrars in this matter. I was asked a question during the ND meeting which went something like: " Why is this not left up to _Market Forces_. For example, credit card companies charge stores a small fee for each refund they are forced to make to a customer. If the store is responsible for a lot of refunds, then the fee goes up. And if the store causes too many then they lose their account ..." Now I do not consider myself an expert on _Market Forces_ or on how and when they work, but the question seemed like a good one. One I was not able to answer. I am not currently a supporter of this, so am not arguing for it at this point. I just wonder if this option has been explored sufficiently. In terms of the current somewhat compromise motion, if the DT continues to have a majority in favor of sending it as a recommendation to the council, I personally would prefer to see it go out for, at least, updating of constituency statements, and perhaps public comment, before the council votes on it, and would support the Drafting Team coming to such a recommendation. Likewise, I think that constituting an open WG on a 120 days schedule to review the issue and make a recommendation would also be something I could support. For this we would need a very tight and specific charter. The DT could recommend such a charter, or it could be developed in another way. Thanks and best wishes for a peaceful and productive meeting a.