RE: [registrars] Credit Card Proposal

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

> with your partners. Do you provide them credit. I believe 
> TUCOWS' policy with its partners would shed some light on the 
> topic since TUCOWS has more registrations with partners than 
> every registry operator except VeriSign.

We simply pass on registry policy to our partners. This is the sole
reason why we are interested in a more progressive policy - the current
one sucks. Our customers don't like it any more than the small and
medium sized-registrars you refer to. Registrars continue to flag this
for the registries as an important issue, but nothing seems to get done
- despite what I would characterize as several wasted opportunities that
could have served to reverse the trend. This isn't just an issue for
small and medium sized registrars, it affects all registrars.

How we go about changing things usually defines what changes we can
accomplish. This isn't a new issue and despite several proposals from
our constituency, I haven't heard much feedback from the supply side of
the equation. Despite best efforts, nothing has been accomplished.
Perhaps the time is right to flip this thing on its head and try
something new. Instead of talking to ourselves like we did in DC, we
should formally ask the registries what they are prepared to do for
their customers. 

Who knows, they might surprise us.



                       -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: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com] 
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 2:10 PM
> To: ross@tucows.com; 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Registrar Constituency'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Credit Card Proposal
> 
> 
> Ross,
> 
> I really do not care how process is made, as long as attempts 
> are put forward to help small to mid-sized registrars that 
> currently bear the brunt of the credit card charge backs. I 
> believe that out of the 3 million registrations TUCOWS 
> currently sponsors, 2.9 million are with your channel 
> partners. How does TUCOWS handle credit card charge backs 
> with your partners. Do you provide them credit. I believe 
> TUCOWS' policy with its partners would shed some light on the 
> topic since TUCOWS has more registrations with partners than 
> every registry operator except VeriSign.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 1:45 PM
> > To: 'Michael D. Palage'; 'Robert F. Connelly'; 'Registrar 
> > Constituency'
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Credit Card Proposal
> >
> >
> > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
>