RE: [registrars] Canceling Renewals?

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

I hate to "assume" but I believe that a condition precedent to receiving the
refund would be deleting the name.

I would also submit that in this case the name would be available for
immediate re-registration, since the RGP was only designed for proper
registrations that lapsed.

I think when you begin to discuss the ramifications in detail you begin to
see some of the complexities that need to be accounted for.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 2:56 PM
> To: Michael D. Palage; Michael Brody; Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: 'Bhavin Turakhia'; 'Patricio Valdes'; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Canceling Renewals?
>
>
> I would assume that if the registries were to adopt a refund
> policy similar
> to what is being discussed here, it will follow shortly that registrars
> would in turn be required to delete these names.
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 1:09 PM
> To: Michael Brody; Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: 'Bhavin Turakhia'; tim@godaddy.com; 'Patricio Valdes';
> registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Canceling Renewals?
>
>
> Michael:
>
> Generally, registrars will modify the Whois to but it in a
> registrar holding
> account where they will seek to reimburse their expenses by selling the
> name. Remember accurate Whois is always required per the contracts.
>
> Prior to Elana, Lauren Gaviser was the registrar representative for
> Register.com. This issue was first raised in Santiago Chile
> (Summer of 99).
> Although some registrars argued that the name should be deleted at the
> registry level as a cost of doing business, this policy was never mandated
> on registrars and the current practice continues.
>
> Hopefully that helps.
>
> Mike
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Michael Brody
> > Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 3:29 AM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: 'Bhavin Turakhia'; tim@godaddy.com; 'Patricio Valdes';
> > registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Canceling Renewals?
> >
> >
> >
> > I do not understand how such a refund system could be costly to
> > implement.
> > There is already a system in place that on days 1 - 5 the name can be
> > deleted and a refund is generated.  I am sure that the system checks at
> > the time of a deletion whether the domain is in the 5 day
> window and then
> > processes the refund.  To add in sub routines that say if the date is
> > between 5 and 30 days credit registrar $5 and if date is between
> > 31 and 60
> > days credit registrar $4...
> >
> > So if you could please explain to me why you feel the cost of
> > implementing
> > the system would cause an overhead cost of more than $1 or $2 I
> > would love
> > to understand.  On the other hand if you are telling me that the loss of
> > income from domains deleted in the first 60 days would put a financial
> > strain on the registry I would like to understand the dynamics of that
> > also.
> >
> > You see I am new to this group and am still learning how
> everything works
> > so please educate me.
> >
> > Michael
> > @com Technology LLC
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >
> > > Bhavin,
> > >
> > > I will certainly bounce your ideas off of others here.  I fear
> > that the cost
> > > of implementing such a refund system would cost more than $1 or
> > $2 per name
> > > but I will certainly get some opinions.
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bhavin Turakhia [mailto:bhavin.t@directi.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 12:17 AM
> > > To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; tim@godaddy.com; 'Patricio Valdes';
> > > registrars@dnso.org
> > > Subject: RE: [registrars] Canceling Renewals?
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi chuck,
> > >
> > > Your points are valid. However this still does not help on counts of
> > > fraud where the registrant has registered a large number of
> single year
> > > domains in one order and paid for them with a fraudulent card. Almost
> > > all registrar interfaces allow check availability on multiple
> options in
> > > the ordering process. It is quit common for fraudsters to slect 3-6
> > > doamin names at a time and register them all for 1 year, thus
> making us
> > > lose the equivalent of 6 years of selling price plus a hefty $25
> > > chargeback processing fee if that transaction is discovered to be
> > > fraudulent after 5 days. And it is quite difficult (next to imposible)
> > > to verify every transaction within a 5 day period.
> > >
> > > On the other hand you could have a policy like this -
> > >
> > > * if a domain is deleted within 5 days of registration/renewal/trfer -
> > > refund all the money to the registrar
> > > * if a domain is deleted after 5 days but within 30 days, refund the
> > > registration fees, but charge the registrar a minor amount like $1 for
> > > the deletion (to prevent gaming of the system)
> > > * if a domain is deleted after 30 days but within 60 days, refund the
> > > registration fees, but charge the registrar a minor amount like $2 for
> > > the deletion (to prevent gaming of the system)
> > >
> > > That is adequate to allow us to check transactions
> > >
> > > This would ensure that even those who are simply stretching their
> > > domains to 60 days end up paying a $2, and so there is really
> no gaming
> > > possibility since there is a cost associated with it. Additionally,
> > > while verisign has to make an entry in the registry for that
> 1-2 months
> > > - it is getting paid for that entry on a twice than normal rate
> > >
> > > Bhavin
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
> > > > [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> > > > Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 4:17 AM
> > > > To: Bhavin Turakhia; tim@godaddy.com; 'Patricio Valdes';
> > > > 'Gomes, Chuck'; registrars@dnso.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [registrars] Canceling Renewals?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bhavin,
> > > >
> > > > In my opinion, the key to managing customer expectations is
> > > > to communicate clearly up front what will happen if they want
> > > > a multiyear registration.  If it is made clear at the point
> > > > of purchase that a registrar will only register the name for
> > > > one year until credit checks are completed, then registrants
> > > > should know what to expect.  Consumers are not unfamiliar
> > > > with the need for credit checks so this should not be that
> > > > big of an issue.  With regard to registrars who would not
> > > > adopt such an approach, that would be a conscious business
> > > > decision on their part.  If they are willing to assume the
> > > > additional risk, they should be able to do that.
> > > >
> > > > Chuck
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Bhavin Turakhia [mailto:bhavin.t@directi.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 9:52 AM
> > > > To: tim@godaddy.com; 'Patricio Valdes'; 'Gomes, Chuck';
> > > > registrars@dnso.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [registrars] Canceling Renewals?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi tim,
> > > >
> > > > The issue is
> > > >
> > > > 1. it does NOT take 60 days to obtain payment from the bank.
> > > > That happens immediately. It takes 60 days to verify if the
> > > > transaction is fraudulent or not (because im assuming most
> > > > chargebacks occur in 60
> > > > days)
> > > >
> > > > 2. genuine customers will perceive this as a service lag.
> > > > They would rather do business with a registrar then who will
> > > > credit them immediately for the domain years. If they have
> > > > bought a 5 year name, they want a 5 year name. Why should
> > > > they have to bother to check again after 60 days and remember
> > > > that their registrar is supposed to add 4 more years to the
> > > > registration. What if the registrar does not add those 4
> > > > years. It would remain as a thought with the customer.
> > > >
> > > > 3. despite informing customers, I know that most customers
> > > > generally do not read a barrage of emails that they get and
> > > > will still go and check the whois and then call technical
> > > > support as to why their expiry date is showing only 1 year
> > > > when they paid for 5
> > > >
> > > > 4. the method you are suggesting is something customers are
> > > > not used to and it will take a large amount of time for this
> > > > information to spread (assuming this practice is adopted by
> > > > all registrars)
> > > >
> > > > 5. the issue with this method is there will always be a
> > > > faction of registrars who will adopt it and a faction who
> > > > will not, creating further confusion amongst customers,
> > > > whereby customers will argue with a registrar as to why they
> > > > follow this type of a practice when other registrars do not.
> > > > Additionally since there will not be universal adoption it
> > > > will result in confusion and lack of a common standard
> > > >
> > > > 6. you must agree that if a solution which DOES NOT penalise
> > > > the genuine customers, and yet at the same time allows
> > > > protection to the registrars (without allowing any gaming)
> > > > exists, then it makes more sense to adopt that as a long term
> > > > feasible solution
> > > >
> > > > Bhavin
> > > >
> > > > PS: ummm in the end - are you against getting a refund for
> > > > deleted names which are fraudulently registered :) ..... Cuz
> > > > im sure you have to battle CC fraud yourself
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:14 PM
> > > > > To: Patricio Valdes; Gomes, Chuck; 'Bhavin Turakhia';
> > > > > registrars@dnso.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: [registrars] Canceling Renewals?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think Chuck is making a reasonable suggestion here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Explain to the customer that the first year will be applied
> > > > > immediately, the other years will be added once the payment
> > > > > has cleared or processed with their bank or credit card
> > > > > company, which usually takes 60 days.
> > > > >
> > > > > That could be clearly presented during the renewal process,
> > > > > registration agreement, terms of service, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > That should also alleviate most concerns about discrepancies
> > > > > between the registrar and registry expiration dates.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tim
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > > > Behalf Of Patricio Valdes
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:32 AM
> > > > > To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Bhavin Turakhia'; registrars@dnso.org
> > > > > Subject: RE: [registrars] Canceling Renewals?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Chuck,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If a registrar does not have confidence that its procedures
> > > > > are not yet solid enough to prevent erroneous extensions or
> > > > > to prevent fraudulent new registrations, then it might be a
> > > > > good idea to simply handle multi-year registrations in this
> > > > > manner: 1) initially register or renew a name for only one
> > > > > year with VGRS; 2) during the first 60 days or so of the
> > > > > new/renewed registration period, perform internal quality
> > > > > checks and apply fraud management techniques; 3) if internal
> > > > > quality checks and fraud investigation yield positive
> > > > > results, then extend the name for multiple years.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----This used to be a good idea, but like I mentioned in a
> > > > > previous thread, this can no longer be done after Verisign
> > > > > decided to show full expiration date on Whois.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, who's the only one winning here? Why did they do it in
> > > > > the first place? Beats me, I really do not know who benefits
> > > > > from showing expiration date on Internic's whois, except
> > > > > Verisign and Hackers who register using fraudalent credit
> > > > > cards to register domains.
> > > > >
> > > > > Patricio Valdes
> > > > > Parava Networks
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Bhavin Turakhia [mailto:bhavin.t@directi.com]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:34 AM
> > > > > To: 'Patricio Valdes'; registrars@dnso.org
> > > > > Cc: 'Gomes, Chuck'
> > > > > Subject: RE: [registrars] Canceling Renewals?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi there,
> > > > >
> > > > > This is inkeeping partially with what we asked chuck. Your
> > > > > observation is an important one too. Verisign unfortunately
> > > > > has no way to credit you for years both in a renewal, or a
> > > > > new registration. Both of these are important from the
> > > > > perspective of registrars doing business. We deal in web
> > > > > services other than domain names and when any customer of
> > > > > ours renews their web hosting package by mistake for 4 years
> > > > > and wants to convert it to 1 year we refund them the money
> > > > > for 3 years.
> > > > >
> > > > > Additionally what we were requesting chuck gomes was the
> > > > > ability to delete a name and obtain a refund for the lattter
> > > > > years. Ie if we delete a 5 year domin (after the grace
> > > > > period) we should get refund for 4 years considering the
> > > > > registry can sell that name - it is now in the available
> > > > > pool. This is imperative to reduce our risk exposure in
> > > > > credit card fraud where fraudsters register domain names for
> > > > > 5-10 years and we cannot discover the fraud until a month
> > > > > later. We end up losing more money in a single fraud than
> > > > > what we make on selling a 100 domains
> > > > >
> > > > > bhavin
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
> > > > > [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
> > > > > > Behalf Of Patricio
> > > > > Valdes
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:24 AM
> > > > > > To: registrars@dnso.org
> > > > > > Subject: [registrars] Canceling Renewals?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To all Registrars;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Im sure we are not the only Registrar out there that
> has had this
> > > > > > happen to, we accidentally renewed 30 domain names for a
> > > > > client for 4
> > > > > > years instead of 1. Verisign is telling us there is no way
> > > > > of getting
> > > > > > these Credits back or remove years to these names.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I really think this is way beyond ridiculous!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At this point we are really considering giving up being a
> > > > > Registrar,
> > > > > > the only people here winning are the Registry
> > > > > > (Verisign) and a few big Registrars.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ICANN has done nothing to help smaller Registrars or to booster
> > > > > > competition and it is nothing new that almost everything it
> > > > > does goes
> > > > > > to support Network Solutions and Verisign.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We never get involved in the discussions because we barely
> > > > > have time
> > > > > > to run the business, now we are regretting it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How the hell did something like the Redemption Period and
> > > > > $85 charge
> > > > > > get approved? Sure as hell beats me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If anyone knows of a buyer please let us know, we are
> > > > really fed up
> > > > > > with ICANN, Verisign and Network Solutions controlling this
> > > > > business.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyone has any job openings?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Patricio Valdes
> > > > > > Parava Networks
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>