Dominik and all, I understood what you were talking about in your original response/statement. I only was reminding you and others that registrars are not registries and that and that registries manage ccTLD's, not registrars. Nomenclature is important as I am sure you know when making arguments of this sort. I also agree, and I believe that most of our members also agree that the AGP's existence is at best very questionable and registrars arguments for keeping the AGP certainly do not make sense. What is not stated but alluded to only once by Ross, is that registrars are mostly desiring the AGP to remain is that they still gain a registration fee, and ICANN gains additional fees the more registrations of Domain Names that are registered especially with Domain Name Tasters and the registrars that turn blind eye towards that nefarious activity. But the truth, as you know Dominik, is often hard to come by these days, and when it is truthfully exposed, the person exposing it is usually badly treated and/or received. This represents a horrible mindset, but one that has dominated ICANN's decisions sense it's conception. -----Original Message-----
From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk> Sent: May 7, 2008 12:39 AM To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>, na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input]
Jeff,
Registrars deal with ccTLDs in terms of ordering the names of such ccTLDs via credit card system. In such a case the AGP cannot be an aid in managing credit card transactions simply because it is not applicable. And nothing happens... Similarly all other objections listed by registrars make no sense in such cases. And nothing happens...
That is what I am talking about.
Dominik
-----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 1:36 AM To: Dominik Filipp; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input]
Dominik and all,
Try to remember that registrars do not manage ccTLD's or TLD's of any sort, registries do. Secondly, the AGP can be an aid in managing credit card transactions for registrars as it does buy them some time to research a suspicious transaction. What the AGP also allows for unfortunately, is Domain Name Tasting and Warehousing via speculation. These are not healthy activities but do offer a skewed and new market for Domain Names which depending on which side of the issue one might be, is also less than healthy for ecommerce in general as it generates a significant lack of confidance in the ecommerce broad market as well as provides a haven for fraud's of many other sorts such as phishing, Domain Name 'ghosting', and huge amounts of spam.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk> Sent: May 6, 2008 9:28 AM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input]
Danny,
I do not think this is necessary. Managing credit card frauds is a technical aspect other businesses are facing and have to be dealing with daily. There are scenarios and/or case-studies available on the Internet describing how to minimize such threat. Just google 'credit + card + fraud' and you'll get many interesting pages addressing this in detail.
The simplest solution would be to ask the registrars/registries running
non-AGP based ccTLDs. In fact, most registrars run such ccTLDs so they already KNOW how to manage it. I do not see a reason to handle this for
them, especially when we are not asked to do that. Furthermore, every registrar might differ in expectations of how such a mechanism should work and suit their needs.
Or, we could consider the suggestions in the first paragraph the alternative and suitable way.
Dominik
Danny Younger wrote:
Let's be clear about something... the Registrar Constituency's primary
argument in favor of retaining the AGP is for its use as a device within which credit card fraud may be managed. At the very least, if we will be arguing to eliminate the AGP, we should be offering up an alternative and suitable way to mitigate Registrar fraud concerns if we hope to arrive at a consensus-based solution.
The only way that I can think of having this accomplished is via new language in a Credits Section within the Service Level Agreement that is part of the relevant Registry-Registrar Agreement -- see for example http://www.verisign.com/static/002136.pdf
This, of course, will require cooperation from the Registries who may not be prone to re-drafting their agreements.
Does anyone else that is advocating AGP elimination have any concrete suggestions to deal with the fraud concerns that can be put on the table?
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-list s.icann.org
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827