ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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


  • To: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Registrars Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: "Jothan Frakes" <jfrakes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:53:41 -0700
  • In-reply-to: <200710031500.l93Exixs012158@pechora2.lax.icann.org>
  • List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcgF08/saSjdfgsyT22pWRRPx5e/KAABs0Ew

Hi Bob-


The 4.3 section is just part of the document that I had vetted against
the registrar constituency to include the non-tasting uses of AGP that
were supplied to me by registrars.


I have attached the most recent version of the registrar feedback, as
well as the larger document it will be contained within (still in flux).
Our section is going to be renumbered in the report to section 4.4 as of
final drafting which is not yet back from the group.


I am careful not to at any point assert that I speak on behalf of the
entire RC, and there were 38 responses out of our 65 members that
submitted AGP uses, which I summarized as being 5 uses:


1.         Correcting typographical errors made by the registrant

2.         Using a cart "hold" system to provide access to names

3.         Mitigating fraud impacts;  

4.         Proactively monitoring the security and stability of their
provisioning systems and customer experience; and  

5.         Addressing situations of Buyers Remorse on behalf of the



The actual final document will finalize tomorrow afternoon @14:00 PDT


I am currently going through an iterative process with the IPC and BC on
their comments, but Jeff Eckhaus and I worked to keep this document
largely intact as is.


I am grateful to all members of this constituency who helped submit
their input on the drafting of the attached document.




Jothan Frakes


Oversee Domain Services



515 S. Flower Street, Suite 4400

Los Angeles, CA 90071

direct +1.213.925.5206

cell +1.206.355.0230


www.domainsponsor.com <http://www.domainsponsor.com>  


Confidentiality Warning: This e-mail contains information intended only
for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of
this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any
dissemination, publication or copying of this e-mail is strictly
prohibited. The sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss,
disruption or damage to your data or computer system that may occur
while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this e-mail. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by
return e-mail. Thank you and have a nice day.  No lawyers were harmed in
the creation of this disclaimer.



From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 7:59 AM
To: Registrars Constituency


Dear Registrars:

The following is the present draft of the "Outcomes Report".  It deals
with uses of the AGP other than domain tasting.

It is a redlined version and I see that the redlined elements did not
survive my cut and paste efforts.  

Regards, BobC

4.3Opinion Polling of Registrars regarding use of AGP

Following statements within the group that the AGP was sometimes used by
registrars for other purposes, not connected to domain tasting or
corrections of misspelled names, the question was raised to some
registrars to exemplify their uses of the AGP. Below is an excerpted,
edited version of the submission provided by the registrar
representatives in the group, the complete submission is in Annex __:

The RFI regarding the use of AGP posed three different options to
consider in remedying the current abuses in AGP: (1) making the ICANN
fee non-refundable; (2) requiring some form of restocking fee per name
deleted within the AGP term; and (3) eliminating the AGP in its

[In a straw poll [please provide for an Annex] sent to [how many, and
how many responded? Provide responses for Annex.] registrars to comment
on what the impact would be to their registrants were AGP to be
eliminated in its entirety, certain [how many? Who?] registrars
indicated that they were using the AGP for customers in a beneficial
manner. All of these registrars believed that the elimination of AGP
would break their cart or provisioning systems or monitoring, and would
require significant re-engineering to re-architect their registrar
systems should there be an elimination of AGP.]

[The concept of eliminating the AGP in its entirety is of concern to
some registrars who utilize the AGP in ways other than tasting or kiting
to provide a high quality of service to their registrants, including

1.Correcting typographical errors made by the registrant

2.Using a cart ?hold? system to provide access to names

3.Mitigating fraud impacts; and 

4.Proactively monitoring the security and stability of their
provisioning systems and customer experience. 

[Two of the identified uses [which two? Identify briefly.] were
considered proprietary, which required some generalization to where the
polled registrar was not identifiable specifically and the respondent
was comfortable with supplying it in response.]

[Some registrars felt that the complete elimination of the AGP would
miss the importance of these benefits which are completely separate and
distinct from tasting or kiting. A description of each of these benefits
and a review of how the two other measures proposed for curing the
abuses of the AGP, making the ICANN fee non-refundable or requiring some
form of restocking fee per name deleted within the AGP term, follows.] 

[It should be considered that the response to the RFI from registrants
is generally formed largely by the experience that they have with their
registrar. Registrants are presented by their registrar (or registrar
reseller) with a ?front end? consisting of web based ?shopping carts? or
portals to register or manage their domain names, host records, email,
web hosting, blogs, etc. in the interests of simplifying the process and
streamlining the user experience. Most registrants are sheltered from
the confusing world of the provisioning protocols and technical aspects
or business rules of policy that registrars face, and as such may not
appreciate some of the other issues registrars face and how the AGP
helps address certain of those issues. ] 

AGP Use 1: Correction of typographical errors made by registrant

Whatever the source of the typographical mistake the registrant seems to
make, typographical mistakes do happen, and the AGP is used by many
registrars to remedy this situation.

At last count, there are now more than 900 ICANN-accredited registrars.
This has caused intense competition for customers, and has driven down
margins in some of the price competitive registrars. Price sensitive
customers have found registrars that service their needs, but there are
also registrants who are more service sensitive than price sensitive,
who demand a higher standard of experience from their registrar.]

Because there are so many registrars, there is competition to
differentiate themselves to the marketplace. Some registrars provide
very high levels of customer service as a distinguishing feature. These
registrars are extremely focused on the quality experience of the
registrant, such that a phone call to the registrar?s customer service
department can reverse a registration within the AGP, to correct a
typographical error.]

AGP Use 2: Cart ?Hold? as an improved registration experience

[There are registrars that have raised the argument that the practice of
domain tasting is creating a confusing user experience that is
disruptive to their business. They believe that domain tasting generates
volumes of customer complaints being fielded by their customer service
departments, which contend that a domain was looked up and available for
their company one day, and then approval or budget to proceed is
obtained, only to find that within the time elapsed it had been
registered by someone else.

When one shops for something unique at a store, it is a common customer
experience to see an item that interests a potential purchaser and that
potential purchaser asks the sales clerk to set it aside while the
purchaser continues to shop, or the purchaser leaves and comes back to
confirm with a spouse, or goes to get some cash, etc. The item gets held
for a period of time and presumably this is done so that nobody else can
purchase it as though it was left on the shelf. 

Many registrars leave the item on the shelf, as it were, and only fully
allocate the item upon completion of payment. This creates a
circumstance where someone could conceivably purchase it elsewhere.

On the other hand, there are some registrars that have created a cart
reserve process utilizing the AGP, that immediately adds the domain at
the registry once it gets looked up by the user. This completely
mitigates the issue of the domain being otherwise provisioned by another
while completing the sales process. If the sales process is not
completed, or nearly 5 days passes, the domain is deleted at the

This process could be adopted by registrars that are concerned about
customer confusion, but many of the registrars that compete on price and
thus operate on thin profit margins will likely not adopt this approach
because it means that their available funds at the registry are held in
a non-sales transaction until it closes. 

As a matter of budget, most registrars opt to keep their balance
available at the registry and not commit funds at the registry with the
add command until a finalized purchase has completed with the

AGP Use 3: Fraud remedies

The AGP currently allows, in the event that fraud occurs, that domain
names registered but still within the AGP can be returned for credit.

Some of such types of fraud correction would be (but are not limited

?Recovering from activity where some bad actor stole registrar account
credentials through phishing

?Remedy of credit card fraud, or 

?Correctional efforts against a rogue reseller customer. 

AGP Use 4: Proactive monitoring

[Many registrars take proactive steps to monitor and ensure the security
and stability of their registration and resolution systems. This is done
to provide quality service to their customers, to ensure high
availability, or to meet dedicated service level agreements for their
customers or resellers. 

Registrars use the AGP as a fundamental tool for proactive monitoring as
a means to determine the health of their connections to the provisioning
system of registries. 

Some of the registrars polled do this only when there is not typical
registration activity to indicate system help.

Some of the registrars do a simple EPP registration and deletion, others
run a fairly comprehensive suite of tests combining EPP and DNS that
involve registration, modification, and determination that DNS
resolution changes also took effect prior to deleting the test name.

Registrars indicated in their responses that they gratefully appreciate
careful forethought, evaluation, and consideration of these other
impacts should there be changes to business logic or provisioning logic,
or provisioning systems as a part of any PDP. A forced or sudden change
in the behavior of an EPP command or expected behavior of current
provisioning systems, could take time and technical resources to
implement, per GTLD, per registrar.

Attachment: Section4_3_20071003_jf.doc
Description: Section4_3_20071003_jf.doc

Attachment: GNSO Domain Tasting ad hoc group Outcomes Report (final draft mxr redline).doc
Description: GNSO Domain Tasting ad hoc group Outcomes Report (final draft mxr redline).doc

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