RE: [gnso-rap-dt] FW: [council] AGP Limits Policy - Implementation Report

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The AGP limits policy was put into place mainly because the research showed
that 99+% of the create/delete pairs in AGP were the work of a small number
of registrars and registrants, who were using tasting/monetization as a
business model at the expense of other parties.  That was really the core of
the issue, correct?

 

 

  _____  

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:45 PM
To: Greg Aaron; Marika Konings; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] FW: [council] AGP Limits Policy - Implementation
Report

 

Greg,

 

I agree that Registries should be allowed to exercise judgment.  My only
point is that we do not have enough information about the facts and
circumstances about why these exemptions were granted to state that
everything was done correctly. 

 

 I disagree with your notion that all areas of fraud are a cost of doing
business.  We need to go back to the roots of why the anti-tasting measures
were put in place and make sure that that forms the basis for our actions.
We do not have enough info to do that here.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy

  _____  

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the
use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and
delete the original message.

 

 

From: Greg Aaron [mailto:gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:23 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Marika Konings'; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] FW: [council] AGP Limits Policy - Implementation
Report

 

Dear Jeff:

 

The AGP Limits Policy gives registry operators leeway, and allows exemptions
for mistakes. The registry operators examined the cases, exercised their
judgment, and did not find the circumstances extraordinary in most of these
cases.  Use of stolen credit cards, phishing, etc is an everyday occurrence
across the industry.  And fraud (and fraud prevention) is an accepted cost
of doing business for registrars.

 

It would be problematic if AGP Limits exemptions were given out regularly
for registrant fraud.  That could, in effect, subsidize or open a loophole
for undesirable behavior.  

 

All best,

--Greg

 

  _____  

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 10:13 AM
To: Greg Aaron; Marika Konings; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] FW: [council] AGP Limits Policy - Implementation
Report

 

I would like to hear a little more background on the alleged fraud.  I take
a different position in that some fraud I believe would be an example of an
extraordinary event especially in light of the true purpose of the AGP.  The
AGP was put into place to protect against fraud and mistake.

 

Bottom line is that I do not believe we have enough facts surrounding the
incidents of alleged fraud to determine whether that was the appropriate
outcome.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy

  _____  

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the
use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and
delete the original message.

 

 

From: owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Greg Aaron
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 10:06 AM
To: 'Marika Konings'; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] FW: [council] AGP Limits Policy - Implementation
Report

 

Of the nine exemption requests, eight involved registrant fraud - phishing,
etc.  Only one of those requests were granted, and it also involved a
problem with cross-credentials, and the registry said the registrar needed
to better next time.  The registry operators declined the requests since
fraud is not an extraordinary event, and is therefore not covered under the
policy.  

 

I think those were appropriate outcomes.  And to me, it appears that the
policy encourages registrars to be watchful.

 

All best,

--Greg

 

 

  _____  

From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:23 AM
To: gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-rap-dt] FW: [council] AGP Limits Policy - Implementation
Report

 

Dear All,

For your information, please find the latest AGP Limits Policy
Implementation Report attached. Note that in the Exhibit 2 'History of
exemption requests', there are two requests (from the same registrar) for
exemption on the basis of 'Registrant abuses that resulted in numerous
registrations being added, deleted and re-added multiple times within the
AGP to avoid paying for the registration'. It might also be worth noting
that exemption was granted noting that the registrar 'need to
improve their systems to catch the scenario identified in part 2 of the
request as future exemptions will not be granted'.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

With best regards,

Marika

------ Forwarded Message
From: Craig Schwartz <craig.schwartz@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:57:07 -0800
To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] AGP Limits Policy - Implementation Report

Dear Councilors,
 
Please find attached the second AGP Limits Policy Implementation Report.
This report provides a status update on the implementation of the Policy
since it was announced to the community on 17 December 2008.
 
As always, please let me know if you have any questions about this
information.
 
Best,
 
Craig Schwartz
Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
ICANN 



------ End of Forwarded Message