<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] WG: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion
Duration of AGP cant be as small as 10-12 , that will not leave time to
detect a fraud and work against that.
I agree with Rob , that a small registrar can be harmed by an overnight of
100s - 1000s if not more false registrations. We have experiences those in
the past and still are.
Only last month we have lost about 5K for fraudulent .IL registrations (.il
does not have any AGP at all). I can speak to that in more details in the
RC meeting.
So, better treshold should be made than only a 10% or 50 names.
Moshe Fogel
www.galcomm.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Rob Hall" <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Jeffrey Eckhaus" <jeckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Thomas Keller"
<tom@xxxxxxxx>; <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Adrian Kinderis"
<adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: [registrars] WG: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed
GNSO Council Motion
On 8-Feb-08, at 11:34 AM, Rob Hall wrote:
So it needs to be a simple process that a Registrar can prove a problem
and get forgiveness.
I'm not sure that I agree with all of the examples that you've set forth,
but nonetheless, I think this is a fair approach, so long as the absolute
limits are very low before we have to request forgiveness.
The other alternative would simply be to change the duration of the AGP
to something very small - like 10-12 hours.
Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783
http://www.domaindirect.com
"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
- Erik Nupponen
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|