ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:21:47 -0500

Thanks Tim. I understood that the registrar bears the ultimate liability for fraud, but I apparently mistakenly assumed that there were (non-APG) registry-registrar practices in place that addressed the issue.


At 26/02/2008 12:28 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:


It isn't the registry that has to worry about fraud. It's the registrar
(they are consumer facing). There is no registry without an AGP that we
deal with that makes any provision for fraud. We (the registrar) just
eat it. If that extends to the gTLD registries with whom accredited
registrars do most of their business, it will increase fraud costs

I can't comment for my constituency yet on Jeff's proposal, but
personally it looks acceptable with one exception, and I agree with the
21 day comment period. The exception is with the reporting. The identity
of the registrar should be revealed only to ICANN in the registry report
and not made public unless ICANN determines that the exception granted
was not within policy.

But I do have a question for Jeff and Chuck.

Jeff quoted section 3.1(b)(iv) of the .com agreement which says:

"Consensus Policies and the procedures by which they are developed shall
be designed to produce, to the extent possible, a consensus of Internet
stakeholders, including the operators of gTLDs."

That same sentence is in the .biz and .info agreements as well (and
probably others). I'm confused by the thread that followed the comments
that included that quote. Jeff and Chuck, is it either of your opinions
that the quote above means that in order for consensus to exist it must
include the consensus agreement of the gTLD operators? Or Jeff, were you
intending to point out that a consensus of Internet stakeholders was
only valid if gTLD operators were included as stakeholders but not that
they necessarily have to agree with the policy?


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, February 25, 2008 5:14 pm
To: gnso-dt-wg@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.


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