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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

That's not the complete picture.  You are talking about it in terms of
percentages as opposed to looking at the rationale.  The reason it was
put into place was that the AGP was being used for purposes for which it
was not intended (i.e., the tasting and monetization you are referring
to).  However, it was recognized that the AGP had a legitimate purpose
and a was a benefit to consumers/registrants (as well as registrars);
and that purpose was to aid in the prevention of typos, mistakes and yes
fraud (among other reasons cited in the consensus policy report).

 

Using your rationale Greg, we would have just eliminated the Add Grace
Period completely as that would have stopped any everything.  We did not
do that because we recognized that the AGP served other legitimate
purposes.  We created the 10% number as we believed that would weed out
the tasting, but preserve the use of the AGP for legitimate purposes.
However, we recognized that percentages could be over-inclusive and
cover transactions for which the AGP was intended.  We believed those to
be extraordinary circumstances given previous data.   Therefore, if a
registrar can show extraordinary circumstance (including actual fraud),
and that extraordinary circumstance would truly go to the preservation
of the purpose of having the AGP in the first place, then the exemption
should be granted.   That was the intent of the group that put the
policy in place.

 

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 3:09 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Marika Konings'; gnso-rap-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rap-dt] FW: [council] AGP Limits Policy -
Implementation Report

 

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