RE: [registrars] Credit Card Proposal

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>]

Bhavin's formulation would make sense - registry sends back a portion of each year's registration to account for multiple name registrations of 1 year each.

Mike - are you talking to the registries about this?

-----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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>