RE: [wg-review] 9. [DNSO Quality] Register.com Position

["Laura Fleisher" <lfleisher@register.com>]

Dear Chris,

I can appreciate your concern over this matter and will do my best to give
you background on SafeRenew™, our automatic renewal service

For most of our customers, their customized domain names are among their
most important business tools, and the gateway to their on-line presence.
Our customers have expressed concern regarding the risk of other people
registering their domain names in the event that a registration
inadvertently lapses.  Furthermore, they have expressed a desire for a
reliable and more transparent process than what is currently industry
standard.  As you can appreciate, the contact information for a registrant
is based on the information that a registrant provides to a registrar at the
time of registration.  It is a frequent occurrence that the registrants do
not update small changes to this information, such as a new email address or
billing department contact (despite the requirement in the registration
agreement to do so), and therefore Register.com's numerous renewal
notifications may never reach certain registrants.  It is in these cases
that Register.com's automatic renewal service is most valuable, since anyone
who actually receives the notifications will have several opportunities to
disable the automatic renewal feature. Without automatic renewal, many of
our customers would be left in an extremely vulnerable situation, as the
recent example of JP Morgan clearly illustrated.  As we all know, because
all domain names are unique, it is difficult to retrieve a domain name once
a registration has lapsed and the domain name has been registered by someone
else.

Prior to domain name expiration, Register.com sends out several emails
informing registrants of an upcoming expiration and the opportunity to
disable the automatic renewal feature if they so desire.  Register.com is
prepared to address the concerns of registrants who believe that a domain
name may have been renewed in error. We are a customer-driven business. That
is why we have offered what we believe to be a valuable service to protect
our customers domain names while at the same time providing them with clear
instructions and numerous opportunities to decline to participate in this
service.  Prior to this service, the industry standard resulted in much
confusion among registrants .

The response to our automatic renewal service has been positive; many
customers are taking advantage of the service while many others are
exercising their option to disable the service.  Register.com appreciates
your feedback as we are always interested in new ways to improve our product
offerings.

Please feel free to contact me directly to discuss the issue in further
detail.

Thanks,

Laura Fleisher
register.com, Inc.
lfleisher@register.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris McElroy [mailto:watch-dog@inreach.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 8:10 AM
> To: Laura Fleisher
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] 9. [DNSO Quality] Register.com Position
>
>
> Those are all good suggestions Laura. Just curious as to which of these
> processes was used by Register.com in choosing to automatically bill
> customers credit cards without their approval and to require that
> they come
> to your website and opt out if they didn't want to be billed by your
> company. I'm just curious if your company leads by example and if this is
> your company's example of transparency and accountability, creating a
> greater sense of credibility, and well founded policies. As we are
> discussing an IDNH Constituency, I would just like to know more about the
> reasons your company considers that an ethical practice, just in case it
> comes up.
>
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Laura Fleisher" <lfleisher@register.com>
> To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 1:47 PM
> Subject: [wg-review] 9. [DNSO Quality] Register.com Position
>
>
> > Register.com Position - DNSO Quality
> >
> > We at register.com commend the DNSO for striving to improve the
> quality of
> > the organization.  A key issue for the DNSO's focus should be
> transparency
> > and accountability in the organization's processes. More transparency,
> which
> > includes thorough and effective dissemination of information, would
> advance
> > the goals of the DNSO by encouraging broader participation in DNSO
> > initiatives, creating a greater sense of legitimacy among the DNSO
> > membership for its actions, and offering well founded policies. Three
> areas
> > that would benefit most are projects, budget, and leadership activities.
> >
> > 1. Projects:
> > Projects undertaken by DNSO working groups and task forces have
> been most
> > effective when the goals and processes of the projects are clearly
> defined.
> > For instance, a project plan or charter, such as the one posted for
> Working
> > Group D (http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990723.NCwgd.html),
> establishes
> a
> > foundation on which individuals and organizations may plan their
> involvement
> > in projects. By informing interested parties of the objectives of the
> > project and the projected time schedule for key steps in the process,
> these
> > parties are able to easily follow the progress of the project,
> participate
> > as they feel necessary, and understand how their participation
> will affect
> > the process.
> >
> > Project plans should be published on the website at the outset of a
> project
> > and progress summaries should be promptly updated on the
> website.  This is
> > in addition to their mention on working group discussion lists. If
> > interested parties have to dig through email lists to get to
> key pieces of
> > information, many lose interest and/or trust in the project. Given that,
> > register.com would offer the following specific suggestions for future
> > projects:
> > A. All key documents regarding goals, decisions, and plans for
> the project
> > should be published on the website in an easily accessible manner.
> > B. A clear goals and proposed methods document should be
> published at the
> > outset of each project.
> > C. A detailed timeline of project steps should be published
> with the goal
> > document.
> > D. Realistic timeframes that allow sufficient time for comment and
> response
> > at each stage of the process (e.g. a) confirm project goals b) confirm
> > project method c) first round of proposals.).
> >
> > 2. Budget
> > Transparency in the budget process would lend additional credibility to
> the
> > DNSO, as well as make future voluntary contributions to the budget more
> > likely. Constituencies would be more enthusiastic about their
> involvement
> if
> > they had a clearer idea how dues were being allocated. Currently, budget
> > information is posted within the minutes of NC meetings and
> teleconferences,
> > as seen in the Scribe's Notes from the NC meeting on November
> 14, 2000 in
> > Los Angeles
(http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20001114.NCmdr-minutes.html).
> While the information presented in such reports is important, it does not
> contain sufficient detail nor does it allow an outside reader to know what
> is the final or formal budget of the DNSO.  A separate, detailed report
> would allow constituency members and other interested parties to gain a
> better understanding of the DNSO's work. To achieve these objectives,
> register.com would like to recommend that:
> A. A standing format be developed for reporting DNSO budget information,
> including sources of income, itemized expenses, and other relevant
> information.
> B. This information be presented in an accessible format on the DNSO
> website.
>
> 3. Leadership Activities
> The NC representatives are the public face of the DNSO and have worked
hard
> to achieve highest level of credibility for the organization. The DNSO
> leadership would build upon this spirit of openness by disclosing their
> current employment and consulting arrangements and experience as part of
> their background materials. The website can be revised to provide such
> biographical and professional information
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>


--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html