RE: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.