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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.
ALan

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

> Alan,
>
> 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
> considerably.
>
> 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?
>
>
> Tim
>
> -------- 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.
>
> 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.