Re: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda

[Mike Lampson <lampson@iaregistry.com>]

> No credit card processing company can stop a transaction from going through
> when the ZIP/POSTCODE do not match - we just pay higher rates when they
> don't.  Can somebody tell us one processing company that can reject the
> transaction?

Authorize.net can do this.

Regards,

Mike Lampson
The Registry at Info Avenue, LLC



On 10/21/02 5:14 PM, Joyce Lin (joyce@007names.com) wrote:

> All,
> 
>> - Registrars would be required to use "automated mechanisms to screen out
>> obviously incorrect contact data (e.g., ZIP code/postcode matching
> software
>> [at least for North American registrants],
> 
> No credit card processing company can stop a transaction from going through
> when the ZIP/POSTCODE do not match - we just pay higher rates when they
> don't.  Can somebody tell us one processing company that can reject the
> transaction?
> 
> Are they penalizing honest North American registrants?  I think they're
> encouraging all North Americans move somewhere in the world other than North
> America at least on paper or claiming it as secondary residency.
> 
> Joyce Lin
> 007Names, Inc.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Beckwith, Bruce" <bbeckwith@verisign.com>
> To: <registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:53 PM
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda
> 
> 
>> Michael,
>> 
>> Would you also consider some time for a discussion, and if warranted, a
>> brief Registrar Constituency statement development session, regarding the
>> WhoIs Task Force Interim Report
>> (http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021015.NCWhoisTF-interim-report.html)?
>> 
>> Though assuredly well intentioned, we believe that the WhoIs Task Force is
>> mis-guided in their suggestions on how to implement data accuracy
> processes
>> in what is essentially a highly automated, low-cost, competitive, and
>> necessary service that we provide customers.  If any of the TF's
> recommended
>> processes were put in place by the registrar community, prices of domain
>> registrations would sky-rocket, which would put gTLD domains out of the
>> reach of most consumers.  Remember, we already have very stringent
>> requirements in the ICANN contracts on how to address reported data
>> inaccuracies.
>> 
>> If you simply look at the summary of the changes recommended in this
> interim
>> report (see Appendix 2 of the General Counsel's Briefing Concerning
>> Implementation of Policies by Registrars and Registry Operators at
>> http://www.icann.org/legal/briefing-on-implementation-20oct02.htm), you
> will
>> note how expensive and onerous these processes would be to implement:
>> 
>> Appendix 2 - Summary of New or Revised Obligations Discussed in the Whois
>> Task Force Report
>> 
>> - Registrars would be required to use "automated mechanisms to screen out
>> obviously incorrect contact data (e.g., ZIP code/postcode matching
> software
>> [at least for North American registrants], rejecting incomplete fields in
>> contact data, etc.)" (Whois Task Force Interim Recommendation 1.0 A.4.a).
>> - Registrars would be obligated to obtain documentary proof of the
> accuracy
>> of "corrected" contact data supplied by registrants in response to
> inquiries
>> concerning accuracy (Whois Recommendation 1.0 A.4.c).
>> - Registrars would be obligated "to treat a complaint about false WHOIS
> data
>> as to one registration as a complaint about false WHOIS data as to all
>> registrations that contain identical contact data, and all such
>> registrations should be made the subject of an inquiry, corrected, or
>> cancelled, as the case may be, en bloc." (Whois Recommendation 1.0 A.4.d).
>> - Registrars would be obligated to verify the accuracy of registrant
> contact
>> data prior to "restoring" a name via the Redemption Grace Period that was
>> deleted the basis of false contact data (Whois Recommendation 1.0 A.4.e).
>> - Registrars (and "thick" registries?) would be required to pay fines of
>> US$250, US $500 and US $1000, and be subject to temporary suspension of
>> rights to register new names, for successive failures to correct reported
>> inaccuracies in their Whois data (Whois Recommendation 1.0 B).
>> - Registrars would be obligated to require registrants to "review and
>> validate all Whois data upon renewal of a registration" (Whois
>> Recommendation 1.0 C.1).
>> - Registrars would be obligated to "spot-check a sample of registrations
> in
>> order to validate the accuracy of contact information submitted" (Whois
>> Recommendation 1.0 C.2).
>> - Registrars would be obligated, "to the greatest extent feasible," to
>> employ "semi-automated methods such as e-mail pinging, automated dialing
> to
>> validate telephone numbers" in order to verify the accuracy of contact
> data
>> submitted by registrants (Whois Recommendation 1.0 C.3).
>> - Registrars (and registries?) would be obligated to use a common Whois
> data
>> output format and return in response to all queries, across all gTLDs
> (Whois
>> Recommendation 2.0 C).
>> - Registrars would be obligated to make their Whois data available for
>> searches across TLDs by domain name, registrant name, admin and technical
>> contact name or handle, and primary and secondary nameservers or IP
>> addresses (Whois Recommendation 3.0 B.1).
>> - Registrars would be obligated to provide bulk access to Whois data only
> to
>> (accredited?) "parties who are able to articulate a legitimate"
>> (non-marketing?) need for access to the data (Whois Recommendation 4.0 A).
>> - Instead of being able to charge "an annual fee, not to exceed
> US$10,000,"
>> registrars would only be able to charge for "actual costs of providing"
> bulk
>> access to Whois data (Whois Recommendation 4.0 B).
>> - Registrars would be obligated (it is optional under the current RAA) to
>> require third parties to agree to not sell or re-distribute the bulk Whois
>> data except as part of a value-added product or service (Whois
>> Recommendation 4.0 E).
>> - Registrars would be obligated (it is optional under the current RAA) to
>> enable registrants to simply and transparently opt-out (or opt-in?) of
>> having their data available for bulk access for marketing purposes (Whois
>> Recommendation 4.0 F).
>> 
>> With the Whois Task Force interim report recommendations of this
>> significance, I strongly urge you and the RC ExCom to devote time on our
>> upcoming agenda to spend time on this issue, and to develop a Registrar
>> Constituency formal response.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Bruce
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 9:29 AM
>> To: registrars@dnso.org
>> Subject: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda
>> 
>> 
>> Hello All:
>> 
>> I should have the agenda for Shanghai's meeting finalized by Monday after
>> the next Registrar Constituency Executive Call. Current topics on the
>> agenda: ICANN reform; update on transfers and Whois Task Forces;
> initiation
>> of deletes task force; .org transition; and whois update (CRISP/Universal
>> Whois). An additional topic that I believe is worth wild to add in new
> TLDs.
>> Bret Fausett has recently published an article on principle' concerning
> the
>> new TLD process, see http://www.lextext.com/newTLDdiscussionpaper.html. I
>> believe that it is a document that many should read as I believe it is
> worth
>> the constituency backing it. If there are any other topic anyone would
> like
>> added to the agenda, please let me know.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Michael D. Palage
>> 
> 
>