RE: [registrars] OUTCOMES REPORT OF THE GNSO AD HOC GROUP ON DOMAIN NAME TASTING

["Jothan Frakes" <jfrakes@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ross-

I can't speak for the three particular registrars that submitted the
'Cart Hold' concept for the straw poll, as to if they had or had not
secured some form of payment similar to how a department store might do
a 'layaway' of a given item of merchandise, or even some form of an
'open to buy' action on a credit card similar to what a hotel does when
you check in.

It seems to me that intuitively a registrar implementing such a feature
would be motivated to take some precaution such as taking a deposit, to
protect from irresponsible use or abuse, such as someone coming in and
tying up a large volume of domain names and thus the registrar's balance
at the registry.

If nothing else, the financial risk associated with offering a service
like this seems to be motivation to cover one's assets, so to speak.

-Jothan

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
jfrakes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 9:14 AM
Cc: Registrars Constituency
Subject: Re: [registrars] OUTCOMES REPORT OF THE GNSO AD HOC GROUP ON
DOMAIN NAME TASTING



Robert F. Connelly wrote:
 > Dear Registrars:
 >
 > The following is the present draft of the "Outcomes Report".  It 
deals with uses
 > of the AGP other than domain tasting.

<snip>

Isn't this practice...

 > 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 registry.

...a violation of provision 3.7.4 [1] of the RAA? No reasonable 
assurance of payment has been secured in any way for these types of 
transactions.

Furthermore, couldn't the whole issue of kiting and tasting be addressed

through proper enforcement of this clause? I mean, in 99.999% (or 
whatever the sickly high number is) of tasting transactions, there is no

reasonable assurance of payment by a registrant. By definition, the 
customer knows that they won't have to pay for those transactions. Why 
do we need a PDP to deal with this when there is clearly sufficient room

in the current contract for ICANN to deal with the practice?

I can understand wanting to tighten up the agreement after it has been 
demonstrated that enforcement has proven difficult or inefficient, but 
I'm not aware that this clause has *ever* been enforced.

I've requested that the GNSO Chair ask staff for more information 
regarding their enforcement of this clause and whether or not it is, or 
could be, an effective hedge against AGP abuse in practice.

-ross


[1] RAA 3.7.4 Registrar shall not activate any Registered Name unless 
and until it is satisfied that it has received a reasonable assurance of

payment of its registration fee. For this purpose, a charge to a credit 
card, general commercial terms extended to creditworthy customers, or 
other mechanism providing a similar level of assurance of payment shall 
be sufficient, provided that the obligation to pay becomes final and 
non-revocable by the Registered Name Holder upon activation of the 
registration.

Robert F. Connelly wrote:
> 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 entirety.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [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 by:]
> 
> 
> 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 registry.
> 
> 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 registrant.
> 
> 
> 
> _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
to):
> 
> ?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.
> 
> 


-- 
Regards,

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
Tucows Inc.

http://www.domaindirect.com
t. 416.538.5492