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
I agree with Ross' views on Section 3.7.4 and believe that this would be a simple resolution to the domain tasting problem. Margie -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 10:14 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
Isn't this practice... [cart reserve] ...a violation of provision 3.7.4 [1] of the RAA?
Not if the customer is logged into their account and payment information is on file, no. While a "cart hold" is a fairly decent process as described, I hear echoes of the old NSI "three month invoice float" that was the mainstay of speculation circa 1997.
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?
Consider: "general commercial terms extended to creditworthy customers" I believe one would find that large-scale tasters do indeed have the funds on hand to theoretically pay for the registrations. Determining whether these registrations have been made on "general commercial terms extended to creditworthy customers" is going to require some information about the creditworthiness of those customers. In the enforcement you envision, then is the registrar going to have to obtain and transmit to ICANN their customer's bank statement? And if that customer has $XXM in the bank, then all's well, unless there is some other definition of "creditworthy" you have in mind. Clearly PIR was able to end tasting in .org without engaging the rest of the community in a PDP. Verisign could do precisely the same thing, and end tasting within the same short time scale. It is a mystery why these circumstances are the fault of eeeevil registrars.
Not if the customer is logged into their account and payment information is on file, no. While a "cart hold" is a fairly decent process as described, I hear echoes of the old NSI "three month invoice float" that was the mainstay of speculation circa 1997.
Disagree - that's too implicit to satisfy the terms of this clause.
Consider: "general commercial terms extended to creditworthy customers"
I believe one would find that large-scale tasters do indeed have the funds on hand to theoretically pay for the registrations. Determining whether these registrations have been made on "general commercial terms extended to creditworthy customers" is going to require some information about the creditworthiness of those customers.
I'd be happy to hear someone make that argument to ICANN. The issue is not whether someone theoretically can pay for the registrations they've tasted, but that they will if the registration is activated. The second a registration gets transmitted to and accepted by the registry as a valid transaction, a fee is payable to the registrar. The clause in question clearly states that the registrar must be satisfied that the RNH will pay for the registration and that such payment is final and non-revocable. In other words, a registrar is not permitted to issue a refund to a registrant for cancellations made during the AGP according to the terms of this contract. Generally, this reads that ICANN is not concerned as much with whether the registrant *could* pay the bill, but whether they *will*. Under all tasting implementations imaginable, the answer is clearly "no, they will not be paying that bill".
Clearly PIR was able to end tasting in .org without engaging the rest of the community in a PDP. Verisign could do precisely the same thing, and end tasting within the same short time scale. It is a mystery why these circumstances are the fault of eeeevil registrars.
Yeah, agree. Its the registries. Always the registries. And ICANN. I'm sure that DOC is implicated somehow as well :) Whatever. Verisign can and should implement the restocking fee, ICANN should enforce their contracts and registrars need to learn when to walk away from short-term money. The DOC - they'll never learn. -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
The second a registration gets transmitted to and accepted by the registry as a valid transaction, a fee is payable to the registrar. The clause in question clearly states that the registrar must be satisfied that the RNH will pay for the registration and that such payment is final and non-revocable. In other words, a registrar is not permitted to issue a refund to a registrant for cancellations made during the AGP according to the terms of this contract.
Again, this is the hazard of "other words" rather than the words written in the clause in black and white. 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. First, "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." What this states, in the negative, is that the Registrar is to have a reasonable assurance of payment, defined as "general commercial terms extended to a creditworthy customer", before activating a name. Second, the obligation to pay becomes "non-revocable by the Registered Name Holder" upon activation. You are reading the words "by the Registered Name Holder" out of the clause, and replacing it with "non-revocable by either the Registered Name Holder or the Registrar." Third, and backing up, it's not clear how you are reading "its registration fee". The word "it" appears three times in that sentence, and each time "it" refers to the Registrar: "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." You are reading the first two "it"s as "the Registrar", and then switching the last "it" to "the domain name". You implicitly assume "it" means one thing the first two times, and then a different thing the third time. Why? (and "because I want it to mean what I want, is not a sufficient reason for changing the meaning of a pronoun in mid-sentence). It raises the question of "what is the Registrar's fee" for the domain name in question, but it certainly doesn't refer to the Registry fee, or any other defined fee than what the Registrar is charging. There are Registrars who provide free domain names as an incident to the purchase of other services entirely. I believe there are at least two incorporation services that provide them incident to incorporation services, and it is common to provide them incident to hosting services. So, Ross, if I am running a "buy two get one free" domain registration promotion, and if the customer has paid for two, then under your reading of the RAA, have I received reasonable assurance of payment for the third domain name, or not? No, I haven't received one red cent for that third domain name. The point is that I have received assurance of payment of MY fee for that third domain name - which was conditioned on payment for the first two. BulkRegister used to have a scaled price structure under which you paid (a) a fixed membership fee, and then (b) a variable fee dependent on how many names you registered. The point of the clause is that - whatever terms the Registrar is offering - the Registrar must be satisfied that the Registered Name Holder is and will be bound by those terms on a basis that is not revocable by the Registered Name Holder at the time the domain name is activated. Further, that satisfaction may arise from the creditworthiness of the Registrant as determined by the Registrar. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but someone was paid an awful lot of money for doing a bad job of choosing pronouns if that sentence really means what you think it means. This is not the worst-drafted section of the RAA. If my workload lets up, I could write a dissertation on the positive impenetrability of other sections of the RAA.
Whatever. Verisign can and should implement the restocking fee,
The silence from Verisign on this issue is fairly loud. The registry is the single control point for limiting/stopping/controlling/banning domain tasting.
From the "bucket of bad analogies"... there is a reason why, for example, birth control methods have historically been oriented more toward one gender than the other, and it is a simple question of numbers. Controlling what happens to one cell is a numerically more efficient strategy than trying to control millions of others.
There are a number of registrars who all may read the RAA in various legitimate ways. There is, for each TLD, a single registry. Piling more potentially ambiguous language into the RAA with yet-undiscovered unintended consequences simply seems less efficient than restricting registry operation in this context.
At 05:23 PM 10/3/2007 Wednesday -0400, John Berryhill wrote:
one cell is a numerically more efficient strategy than trying to control millions of others.
Dear John: Is an egg and a sperm a "cell" or "half of a shell". Regards, BobC
John, although you may not know BulkRegister still has a membership fee pricing structure; everyone on this list knows many registrars have a variety of volume discount structures, bundling structures, business models etc. It's the essence of what ICANN has successfully brought to this space: competition, variety, choice. Any registrar can sell 10,000 names for $0.07 each (a total of $700) and be assured of payment of the $700 (but not only that, actually get paid the $700), and activate all 10,000 names. Then it can delete 9,900 of them (before or after the AGP). I do not see how this is in any way violation of 3.7.4 Ross, I know you are not advocating ICANN mandating what prices registrars or registries should charge for domain names. -----Original Message----- From: John Berryhill [mailto:john@johnberryhill.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 2:24 PM To: ross@tucows.com; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] OUTCOMES REPORT OF THE GNSO AD HOC GROUP ON DOMAINNAME TASTING
The second a registration gets transmitted to and accepted by the registry as a valid transaction, a fee is payable to the registrar. The clause in question clearly states that the registrar must be satisfied that the RNH will pay for the registration and that such payment is final and non-revocable. In other words, a registrar is not permitted to issue a refund to a registrant for cancellations made during the AGP according to the terms of this contract.
Again, this is the hazard of "other words" rather than the words written in the clause in black and white. 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. First, "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." What this states, in the negative, is that the Registrar is to have a reasonable assurance of payment, defined as "general commercial terms extended to a creditworthy customer", before activating a name. Second, the obligation to pay becomes "non-revocable by the Registered Name Holder" upon activation. You are reading the words "by the Registered Name Holder" out of the clause, and replacing it with "non-revocable by either the Registered Name Holder or the Registrar." Third, and backing up, it's not clear how you are reading "its registration fee". The word "it" appears three times in that sentence, and each time "it" refers to the Registrar: "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." You are reading the first two "it"s as "the Registrar", and then switching the last "it" to "the domain name". You implicitly assume "it" means one thing the first two times, and then a different thing the third time. Why? (and "because I want it to mean what I want, is not a sufficient reason for changing the meaning of a pronoun in mid-sentence). It raises the question of "what is the Registrar's fee" for the domain name in question, but it certainly doesn't refer to the Registry fee, or any other defined fee than what the Registrar is charging. There are Registrars who provide free domain names as an incident to the purchase of other services entirely. I believe there are at least two incorporation services that provide them incident to incorporation services, and it is common to provide them incident to hosting services. So, Ross, if I am running a "buy two get one free" domain registration promotion, and if the customer has paid for two, then under your reading of the RAA, have I received reasonable assurance of payment for the third domain name, or not? No, I haven't received one red cent for that third domain name. The point is that I have received assurance of payment of MY fee for that third domain name - which was conditioned on payment for the first two. BulkRegister used to have a scaled price structure under which you paid (a) a fixed membership fee, and then (b) a variable fee dependent on how many names you registered. The point of the clause is that - whatever terms the Registrar is offering - the Registrar must be satisfied that the Registered Name Holder is and will be bound by those terms on a basis that is not revocable by the Registered Name Holder at the time the domain name is activated. Further, that satisfaction may arise from the creditworthiness of the Registrant as determined by the Registrar. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but someone was paid an awful lot of money for doing a bad job of choosing pronouns if that sentence really means what you think it means. This is not the worst-drafted section of the RAA. If my workload lets up, I could write a dissertation on the positive impenetrability of other sections of the RAA.
Whatever. Verisign can and should implement the restocking fee,
The silence from Verisign on this issue is fairly loud. The registry is the single control point for limiting/stopping/controlling/banning domain tasting.
From the "bucket of bad analogies"... there is a reason why, for example, birth control methods have historically been oriented more toward one gender than the other, and it is a simple question of numbers. Controlling what happens to one cell is a numerically more efficient strategy than trying to control millions of others.
There are a number of registrars who all may read the RAA in various legitimate ways. There is, for each TLD, a single registry. Piling more potentially ambiguous language into the RAA with yet-undiscovered unintended consequences simply seems less efficient than restricting registry operation in this context.
Paul Stahura wrote:
Ross, I know you are not advocating ICANN mandating what prices registrars or registries should charge for domain names.
No, at the highest level I'm saying that ICANN should properly regulate, enforce or get out of the way. I find it amazing that the constituency is even having conversations like this. Its not up to me to find ways to enforce the agreement anymore than it is up to you to find ways around it. ICANN's legacy will be the failure of its uneven regulatory philosophy. Some price controls, some competition, some compliance. -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
No, at the highest level I'm saying that ICANN should properly regulate, enforce or get out of the way.
At the highest level the RAA, as drafted, is not an appropriate tool for regulating or enforcing anything. It is an all-or-nothing proposition. That's the entire point of the ongoing RAA revision exercise.
Its not up to me to find ways to enforce the agreement anymore than it is up to you to find ways around it.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. There are legitimate and reasoned differences of interpretation. The problem with an "it means what I say" approach is that if your interpretation, however reasonable, does not agree with whomever is assigned the role of authoritative interpreter, the RAA entitles ICANN to withdraw your accreditation. There are no other remedies in the document. Now, last year, we had a situation in which, in one context, certain ICANN staff had taken the position that since (a) a domain must be the subject of a valid registration contract, and (b) a party cannot contract with itself, then it follows: a registrar cannot register its own domain name. It was, at the time, a cute intervention on ICANN's part in a UDRP proceeding in which the complaint eventually failed, but the reasoning is utterly sound, correct, and bore the signature of Tim Cole. Who could argue with that? The domain name Tucows.com is not compliant with the RAA. It is registered to Tucows, and through Tucows, and it thus cannot be incident to a valid registration contract. So, if it is your job to "find ways to enforce the agreement", I will be pleased to see you delete this non-compliant domain name immediately. It might even get a couple of hits a day and be thus worth something in a delete auction. Now, maybe you were in the room in Florida last year when Mike Zupke informed those registrars present that ICANN would not enforce the RAA with respect to an unspecified set of domain names which a registrar registers to itself. If you were, then, congratulations, you happen to know about this particular and vague non-enforcement promise which Mr. Zupke made verbally to those who were there. It just seems fundamentally flawed that the proposition of whether Tucows.com is or is not a RAA compliant domain name depends upon whether the authoritative view of the RAA is that of Mr. Cole in August or Mr. Zupke in October. Strictly speaking, Mr. Zupke agreed that such names are non-compliant, but that there would be no enforcement taken. This pledge presumably is valid as long as Mr. Zupke is in good health and gainful employment at ICANN. The prospect is downright horrific when you go back to the main premise of the RAA - i.e. as drafted, a single non-compliant domain name is a sufficient ground to have your accreditation revoked. Yes, in practice ICANN doesn't do that. But a system of rules should not depend upon whether someone charged with enforcement happens to be in a good mood on any given day.
I knew we agreed john! it seems both of us are calling for clarity in contract AND clarity and action in enforcement. where there is ambiguity there should be formal clarifications issued. that can only be a good thing. then we avoid discrepancies between mr. zupke in florida, mr. cole in a udrp proceeding and colonel mustard in the kitchen with a .museum! On Oct 3, 2007, at 11:18 PM, John Berryhill wrote:
No, at the highest level I'm saying that ICANN should properly regulate, enforce or get out of the way.
At the highest level the RAA, as drafted, is not an appropriate tool for regulating or enforcing anything. It is an all-or-nothing proposition.
That's the entire point of the ongoing RAA revision exercise.
Its not up to me to find ways to enforce the agreement anymore than it is up to you to find ways around it.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
There are legitimate and reasoned differences of interpretation. The problem with an "it means what I say" approach is that if your interpretation, however reasonable, does not agree with whomever is assigned the role of authoritative interpreter, the RAA entitles ICANN to withdraw your accreditation. There are no other remedies in the document.
Now, last year, we had a situation in which, in one context, certain ICANN staff had taken the position that since (a) a domain must be the subject of a valid registration contract, and (b) a party cannot contract with itself, then it follows: a registrar cannot register its own domain name.
It was, at the time, a cute intervention on ICANN's part in a UDRP proceeding in which the complaint eventually failed, but the reasoning is utterly sound, correct, and bore the signature of Tim Cole. Who could argue with that?
The domain name Tucows.com is not compliant with the RAA. It is registered to Tucows, and through Tucows, and it thus cannot be incident to a valid registration contract. So, if it is your job to "find ways to enforce the agreement", I will be pleased to see you delete this non-compliant domain name immediately. It might even get a couple of hits a day and be thus worth something in a delete auction.
Now, maybe you were in the room in Florida last year when Mike Zupke informed those registrars present that ICANN would not enforce the RAA with respect to an unspecified set of domain names which a registrar registers to itself. If you were, then, congratulations, you happen to know about this particular and vague non-enforcement promise which Mr. Zupke made verbally to those who were there.
It just seems fundamentally flawed that the proposition of whether Tucows.com is or is not a RAA compliant domain name depends upon whether the authoritative view of the RAA is that of Mr. Cole in August or Mr. Zupke in October. Strictly speaking, Mr. Zupke agreed that such names are non-compliant, but that there would be no enforcement taken. This pledge presumably is valid as long as Mr. Zupke is in good health and gainful employment at ICANN.
The prospect is downright horrific when you go back to the main premise of the RAA - i.e. as drafted, a single non-compliant domain name is a sufficient ground to have your accreditation revoked.
Yes, in practice ICANN doesn't do that. But a system of rules should not depend upon whether someone charged with enforcement happens to be in a good mood on any given day.
Registrar: Could you please send me an email confirming who from your registrar will be attending the ICANN meeting in LA. If the voting representative of your registrar is also attending could you please provide me with his/her name. If possible, please respond no later than Monday, October 22, 2007. Thank you, Cristin Donahue Assistant to the Registrar Constituency
Donny Simonton from Intercosmos Media Group, Inc., will be there and he is the voting member. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cristin Donahue" <cristin@johnberryhill.com> To: "'Registrars Constituency'" <registrars@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 1:49 PM Subject: [registrars] ICANN Meeting in LA
Registrar:
Could you please send me an email confirming who from your registrar will be attending the ICANN meeting in LA. If the voting representative of your registrar is also attending could you please provide me with his/her name.
If possible, please respond no later than Monday, October 22, 2007.
Thank you,
Cristin Donahue Assistant to the Registrar Constituency
Cristin, Adrian Kinderis from AusRegistry Group will be in attendance as the voting member. Simon Delzoppo will also be in attendance. See you in LA. Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com <mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. ________________________________ From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Cristin Donahue Sent: Thu 10/4/2007 9:49 PM To: 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: [registrars] ICANN Meeting in LA Registrar: Could you please send me an email confirming who from your registrar will be attending the ICANN meeting in LA. If the voting representative of your registrar is also attending could you please provide me with his/her name. If possible, please respond no later than Monday, October 22, 2007. Thank you, Cristin Donahue Assistant to the Registrar Constituency
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@domainsponsor.com 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] 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
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 registrant The actual final document will finalize tomorrow afternoon @14:00 PDT (GMT-8). 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 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@domainsponsor.com 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 7:59 AM To: Registrars Constituency Subject: [registrars] OUTCOMES REPORT OF THE GNSO AD HOC GROUP ON DOMAIN NAME TASTING 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.
participants (10)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Cristin Donahue -
elliot noss -
John Berryhill -
Jothan Frakes -
Margie Milam -
Paul Stahura -
Robert F. Connelly -
Ross Rader -
Sigmund Solares