ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:14:15 -0500

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.


At 25/02/2008 09:41 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:


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

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


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


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy