[NA-Discuss] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input]

[Dominik Filipp]

Danny,

I do not think this is necessary. Managing credit card frauds is a
technical aspect other businesses are facing and have to be dealing with
daily. There are scenarios and/or case-studies available on the Internet
describing how to minimize such threat. Just google 'credit + card +
fraud' and you'll get many interesting pages addressing this in detail.

The simplest solution would be to ask the registrars/registries running
non-AGP based ccTLDs. In fact, most registrars run such ccTLDs so they
already KNOW how to manage it. I do not see a reason to handle this for
them, especially when we are not asked to do that. Furthermore, every
registrar might differ in expectations of how such a mechanism should
work and suit their needs.

Or, we could consider the suggestions in the first paragraph the
alternative and suitable way.

Dominik


Danny Younger wrote:
>Let's be clear about something... the Registrar
>Constituency's primary argument in favor of retaining
>the AGP is for its use as a device within which credit
>card fraud may be managed.  At the very least, if we
>will be arguing to eliminate the AGP, we should be
>offering up an alternative and suitable way to
>mitigate Registrar fraud concerns if we hope to arrive
>at a consensus-based solution.

>The only way that I can think of having this
>accomplished is via new language in a Credits Section
>within the Service Level Agreement that is part of the
>relevant Registry-Registrar Agreement -- see for
>example http://www.verisign.com/static/002136.pdf

>This, of course, will require cooperation from the
>Registries who may not be prone to re-drafting their
>agreements.

>Does anyone else that is advocating AGP elimination
>have any concrete suggestions to deal with the fraud
>concerns that can be put on the table?