RE: [registrars] Credit Card Proposal

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

I agree in principle with the approach Michael, but I'm not sure that we
could adequately agree on a set of standards that would take into
account the international nature of the constituency and the diversity
of their business models. Tucows, for instance, would not be able to
take advantage of the proposal that you set forward despite an exemplary
fraud management record.

I would be more inclined to back a proposal that could allow us (and
presumably others) to participate. Perhaps something along the lines of
requiring the registry to refund all unused years beyond the current one
if the domain name has been deleted and is less than 10 months old - or
some equally limited period of time. It will be impossible to take into
account 100% of all of the circumstances and re-capture all of the lost
revenue, but perhaps it would be realistic to attempt to re-capture most
of it.

I don't know how the rest of the constituency feels about this, but it
is often difficult to discuss matters such as these with the registry
constituency because they rarely provide us with the feedback that we
need to compromise. Despite the fact that all registrars that were in
DC, save one, agreed with a proposition, none of the registries would
even provide us with an indication regarding whether or not they
concurred with our feedback. One-sided negotiations aren't usually a
good way to arrive at a compromise.



                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 1:20 PM
> To: Robert F. Connelly; Registrar Constituency
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Credit Card Proposal
> 
> 
> Bob,
> 
> The fraud prevent mechanisms vary far and wide, and I am not 
> adopting any specific mechanism. I am of the opinion that 
> registries are not unsympatheic to our situation.  However, I 
> believe they want to make sure that registrars are doing 
> everything they can to minimize fraud as opposed to just 
> asking the registries to give them a credit.
> 
> This is why I call my proposal a middle of the road approach 
> where both parties meet somewhere in the middle. Obviously if 
> the registries and registrars choose to maintain entrenched 
> positions then the status quo will be preserved and the 
> registrars will continue to bear the full burden of credit 
> card charge backs.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
> > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 12:53 PM
> > To: Registrar Constituency
> > Subject: Re: [registrars] Credit Card Proposal
> >
> >
> > At 12:38 PM 2/24/03 -0500, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> > >  An additional requirement for the registrar to obtain this
> > refund would
> > > be the demonstration that the registrar employs a certain minimum 
> > >level  of fraud prevention mechanism, i.e. CVV2, address 
> > >verification, etc.
> >
> > Dear Michael:  I had not heard that. On Wednesday, Rick mentioned 
> > "heuristics" as relates to the compatibility of telephone area code 
> > with address.
> >
> > Could you give more information on CVV2?
> >
> > Recently, some gasoline stations here in Henderson are 
> asking for the 
> > zip code of the credit card.  I have to key in the zip code 
> *number*.  
> > Could be hard on our Canadian visitors to the States, their postal 
> > codes have alpha
> > content;-{
> >
> > Regards, BobC
> >
> >
> >
> 
>