RE: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda

["Donny Simonton" <donny@intercosmos.com>]

Credit card processing, my favorite topic.  There are basically three
types of transactions, an authorization, debit, and a credit.  The way
most if not all processing companies work, is that on an authorization
you send them the (Zip/Postal Code and the address) for AVS and the
CVV2/CID number.  Most processing companies will then tell you, if the
authorization was approved or denied and they will also tell you if the
AVS matched and if the CVV2 passed.  If is then your responsibility to
send a debit transaction to the processing company to get your money.

If you do not have these options, find another processor!

Donny

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
> Behalf Of Mike Lampson
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 8:05 PM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Cc: Joyce Lin
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda
> 
> > No credit card processing company can stop a transaction from going
> through
> > when the ZIP/POSTCODE do not match - we just pay higher rates when
they
> > don't.  Can somebody tell us one processing company that can reject
the
> > transaction?
> 
> Authorize.net can do this.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike Lampson
> The Registry at Info Avenue, LLC
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/21/02 5:14 PM, Joyce Lin (joyce@007names.com) wrote:
> 
> > All,
> >
> >> - Registrars would be required to use "automated mechanisms to
screen
> out
> >> obviously incorrect contact data (e.g., ZIP code/postcode matching
> > software
> >> [at least for North American registrants],
> >
> > No credit card processing company can stop a transaction from going
> through
> > when the ZIP/POSTCODE do not match - we just pay higher rates when
they
> > don't.  Can somebody tell us one processing company that can reject
the
> > transaction?
> >
> > Are they penalizing honest North American registrants?  I think
they're
> > encouraging all North Americans move somewhere in the world other
than
> North
> > America at least on paper or claiming it as secondary residency.
> >
> > Joyce Lin
> > 007Names, Inc.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Beckwith, Bruce" <bbeckwith@verisign.com>
> > To: <registrars@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:53 PM
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda
> >
> >
> >> Michael,
> >>
> >> Would you also consider some time for a discussion, and if
warranted, a
> >> brief Registrar Constituency statement development session,
regarding
> the
> >> WhoIs Task Force Interim Report
> >> (http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021015.NCWhoisTF-interim-
> report.html)?
> >>
> >> Though assuredly well intentioned, we believe that the WhoIs Task
Force
> is
> >> mis-guided in their suggestions on how to implement data accuracy
> > processes
> >> in what is essentially a highly automated, low-cost, competitive,
and
> >> necessary service that we provide customers.  If any of the TF's
> > recommended
> >> processes were put in place by the registrar community, prices of
> domain
> >> registrations would sky-rocket, which would put gTLD domains out of
the
> >> reach of most consumers.  Remember, we already have very stringent
> >> requirements in the ICANN contracts on how to address reported data
> >> inaccuracies.
> >>
> >> If you simply look at the summary of the changes recommended in
this
> > interim
> >> report (see Appendix 2 of the General Counsel's Briefing Concerning
> >> Implementation of Policies by Registrars and Registry Operators at
> >> http://www.icann.org/legal/briefing-on-implementation-20oct02.htm),
you
> > will
> >> note how expensive and onerous these processes would be to
implement:
> >>
> >> Appendix 2 - Summary of New or Revised Obligations Discussed in the
> Whois
> >> Task Force Report
> >>
> >> - Registrars would be required to use "automated mechanisms to
screen
> out
> >> obviously incorrect contact data (e.g., ZIP code/postcode matching
> > software
> >> [at least for North American registrants], rejecting incomplete
fields
> in
> >> contact data, etc.)" (Whois Task Force Interim Recommendation 1.0
> A.4.a).
> >> - Registrars would be obligated to obtain documentary proof of the
> > accuracy
> >> of "corrected" contact data supplied by registrants in response to
> > inquiries
> >> concerning accuracy (Whois Recommendation 1.0 A.4.c).
> >> - Registrars would be obligated "to treat a complaint about false
WHOIS
> > data
> >> as to one registration as a complaint about false WHOIS data as to
all
> >> registrations that contain identical contact data, and all such
> >> registrations should be made the subject of an inquiry, corrected,
or
> >> cancelled, as the case may be, en bloc." (Whois Recommendation 1.0
> A.4.d).
> >> - Registrars would be obligated to verify the accuracy of
registrant
> > contact
> >> data prior to "restoring" a name via the Redemption Grace Period
that
> was
> >> deleted the basis of false contact data (Whois Recommendation 1.0
> A.4.e).
> >> - Registrars (and "thick" registries?) would be required to pay
fines
> of
> >> US$250, US $500 and US $1000, and be subject to temporary
suspension of
> >> rights to register new names, for successive failures to correct
> reported
> >> inaccuracies in their Whois data (Whois Recommendation 1.0 B).
> >> - Registrars would be obligated to require registrants to "review
and
> >> validate all Whois data upon renewal of a registration" (Whois
> >> Recommendation 1.0 C.1).
> >> - Registrars would be obligated to "spot-check a sample of
> registrations
> > in
> >> order to validate the accuracy of contact information submitted"
(Whois
> >> Recommendation 1.0 C.2).
> >> - Registrars would be obligated, "to the greatest extent feasible,"
to
> >> employ "semi-automated methods such as e-mail pinging, automated
> dialing
> > to
> >> validate telephone numbers" in order to verify the accuracy of
contact
> > data
> >> submitted by registrants (Whois Recommendation 1.0 C.3).
> >> - Registrars (and registries?) would be obligated to use a common
Whois
> > data
> >> output format and return in response to all queries, across all
gTLDs
> > (Whois
> >> Recommendation 2.0 C).
> >> - Registrars would be obligated to make their Whois data available
for
> >> searches across TLDs by domain name, registrant name, admin and
> technical
> >> contact name or handle, and primary and secondary nameservers or IP
> >> addresses (Whois Recommendation 3.0 B.1).
> >> - Registrars would be obligated to provide bulk access to Whois
data
> only
> > to
> >> (accredited?) "parties who are able to articulate a legitimate"
> >> (non-marketing?) need for access to the data (Whois Recommendation
4.0
> A).
> >> - Instead of being able to charge "an annual fee, not to exceed
> > US$10,000,"
> >> registrars would only be able to charge for "actual costs of
providing"
> > bulk
> >> access to Whois data (Whois Recommendation 4.0 B).
> >> - Registrars would be obligated (it is optional under the current
RAA)
> to
> >> require third parties to agree to not sell or re-distribute the
bulk
> Whois
> >> data except as part of a value-added product or service (Whois
> >> Recommendation 4.0 E).
> >> - Registrars would be obligated (it is optional under the current
RAA)
> to
> >> enable registrants to simply and transparently opt-out (or opt-in?)
of
> >> having their data available for bulk access for marketing purposes
> (Whois
> >> Recommendation 4.0 F).
> >>
> >> With the Whois Task Force interim report recommendations of this
> >> significance, I strongly urge you and the RC ExCom to devote time
on
> our
> >> upcoming agenda to spend time on this issue, and to develop a
Registrar
> >> Constituency formal response.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Bruce
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 9:29 AM
> >> To: registrars@dnso.org
> >> Subject: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello All:
> >>
> >> I should have the agenda for Shanghai's meeting finalized by Monday
> after
> >> the next Registrar Constituency Executive Call. Current topics on
the
> >> agenda: ICANN reform; update on transfers and Whois Task Forces;
> > initiation
> >> of deletes task force; .org transition; and whois update
> (CRISP/Universal
> >> Whois). An additional topic that I believe is worth wild to add in
new
> > TLDs.
> >> Bret Fausett has recently published an article on principle'
concerning
> > the
> >> new TLD process, see
http://www.lextext.com/newTLDdiscussionpaper.html.
> I
> >> believe that it is a document that many should read as I believe it
is
> > worth
> >> the constituency backing it. If there are any other topic anyone
would
> > like
> >> added to the agenda, please let me know.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Michael D. Palage
> >>
> >
> >
>