<html>
<body>
Chuck, if I am reading your message correctly (and specifically the part
that says "then we expect them to be able to substantiate their
claim and not just use one of the industry’s hot buzz words and expect
that we will grant the exemption"), this means that you are
rejecting claims that simply cite "fraud", but that if a
registrar were to make a claim with specific details indicating the
particulars (on X date, we received Y registrations within a Z hour
period all using different credit card numbers or whatever) and backing
it up with records from their credit-card service, and perhaps a plan to
avoid the problem in the future, you might treat it as an valid
exception?<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 02/04/2010 06:10 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color="#0000FF">Mike,<br>
</font> <br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color="#0000FF">I contacted Barbara
Steele in our customer affairs office and she shared the following.<br>
</font> <br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color="#000080">Given that there is
a 10% deletion allowance, it is their opinion that this should be
adequate to address any issues that a registrar is having with
traditional fraud, i.e., stolen credit cards, etc. If they have
deletes of more than 10% “due to fraud”, then the registrars experiencing
this have bigger issues that they are not addressing. What we have
found is that registrars would claim fraud when submitting a request for
an exemption and when we denied the request indicating that we don’t view
fraud as an extraordinary circumstance, the registrar’s AGP deletion
percentage would drop down below the 10% threshold or they moved on to
claims of phishing. We do want registrars to “do the right thing”
and take down domains that are being used for nefarious activity but if
they are exceeding the AGP threshold, then we expect them to be able to
substantiate their claim and not just use one of the industry’s hot buzz
words and expect that we will grant the
exemption.</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color="#0000FF">
</font> <br><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color="#000080"> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color="#000080">If fraud (and
unsubstantiated phishing) were deemed to be valid examples of
extraordinary circumstances, then I think that ICANN would find that
their ‘successful’ policy is not so ‘successful’ after all. Even
with the low number of exemption requests that we receive each month, we
spend a huge amount of time trying to substantiate the claims and then
getting the internal approvals of our recommendations. I have
concerns that if “fraud” and “phishing” become the “get out of jail” free
card for submitting exemption requests, then we will see more registrars
exceeding the 10% threshold and then submitting an exemption request for
the domain names over the threshold. I don’t think that VeriSign
(or any other registry) would want to hire the number of people that it
would take to process the increase in claims and I don’t think that ICANN
would be very happy with the number of AGP deletes increasing. <br>
</font><br>
Chuck<br><br>
<dl><hr>
<dd><font face="Tahoma" size=2>From:</b> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of </b>Mike
Rodenbaugh<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Friday, April 02, 2010 3:48 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b> 'Craig Schwartz'; 'GNSO Council'<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> RE: [council] AGP Limits Policy - Status Report
Inquiry<br>
</font><br>
<dd>Thanks Craig.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>I am curious to know from contract parties whether the fraud issue is
really a significant issue needed Council consideration. Otherwise,
I think this issue can be closed and no further reports are needed to the
Council since the stats are reported in the monthly registry reports
anyway.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Mike Rodenbaugh<br><br>
<dd>RODENBAUGH LAW<br><br>
<dd>tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087<br><br>
<dd><a href="http://rodenbaugh.com/">http://rodenbaugh.com</a><br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>From:</b> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of </b>Craig
Schwartz<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Friday, April 02, 2010 6:38 AM<br>
<dd>To:</b> GNSO Council<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> [council] AGP Limits Policy - Status Report
Inquiry<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Dear Councilors,<br><br>
<dd>The AGP Limits Policy contains a provision that requires ICANN staff
to provide semi-annual updates to the GSNO on the implementation of the
Policy. To date ICANN has issued two reports, the first in June 2009 and
the second in December 2009. With excessive AGP deletes down by 99.7%,
the Policy is achieving its desired outcome and this was stated in the
last report. <br><br>
<dd>Also noted in the last report were some registrar complaints about
exemptions requests that had been denied when the basis for the request
was fraud. From the 14 December 2009 report, ICANN noted: A question the
GNSO Council may wish to consider in the future is whether modifications
to the Policy are necessary and/or appropriate given the results and
community reaction to date. For example, should the GNSO Council consider
defining the terms “extraordinary circumstances” or “reoccur regularly?”
During the policy development process on domain tasting some community
members suggested that the mitigation of instances of consumer fraud may
be a legitimate use of AGP deletes. Additionally, if a registrar
proactively takes down (i.e., deletes) domains that are known to
propagate a fraudulent activity such as phishing, should the registrar
bear the cost if the deletions cause the registrar to exceed the
threshold defined in the Policy?<br>
</i><br>
<dd>Staff recommends that the GSNO consider whether further work is
needed in light of the fact that excessive AGP deletes are down by
99.7%. Staff further recommends that the Council consider whether
semi-annual reports should be continued and if so, with what frequency?
<br><br>
<dd>I’m happy to join the next GNSO call to discuss this and to answer
any questions you may have.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Best,<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Craig Schwartz<br>
<dd>Chief gTLD Registry Liaison<br>
<dd>ICANN<br><br>
<dd> <br>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>