RE: [registrars] Credit Card Proposal

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

I am telling every registry that I have the opportunity to speak with that
credit card charge backs are a serious problem confronting registrars. That
was the purpose of the joint meeting so that registries could see those
issues that we are concerned with.

I agree that Bhavin's proposal is another potential option to put forward to
the registries. See my last email where I tried to work through the
economics.

Mike




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@register.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 2:33 PM
> To: Michael D. Palage; ross@tucows.com; Robert F. Connelly; Registrar
> Constituency
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Credit Card Proposal
>
>
> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>