RE: [registrars] Canceling Renewals?

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@directi.com>]

Hi chuck,

I do not know about your level of technical expertise. I am not
disputing that handling 7 million queries a day is an easy task. However
I have personally been a coder since over 12 years now, and what michael
states is accurate. In this case the 7 million queries you refer to are
for the registry operations. That does not affect the refunding process
in anyways. 

Picture the below


If domaincreationdate >= currentdate - 5
{
	$refundamount = $6 * noofyears
}

NOW CHANGE THE ABV STATEMENT TO

If domaincreationdate >= currentdate - 5
{
	$refundamount = $6 * noofyears
}
Else if domaincreationdate >= currentdate - 30
{
	$refundamount = ($6 * noofyears) - $1
}
Else if domaincreationdate >= currentdate - 60
{
	$refundamount = ($6 * noofyears) - $2
}

THAT IS IT. There is nothing more to it. To add and test this routine
would likely take less than one MAN DAY. And if one man day can help all
of us registrars combat fraud then as a registry I think I should have
lesser trouble and there would not require this much dialogue to sell it
internally.

I am quite sure that the registry is not looking at the refund being a
threat to revenues. On the contrary we as registrars would be far more
comfortable and do more business is we could sleep knowing that our
fraud losses are limited

Best Regards
Bhavin Turakhia
Founder, CEO & Chairman
Directi
----------------------------
Tel: 91-22-26370256 (4 lines)
Fax: 91-22-26370255
http://www.directi.com
----------------------------


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 2:58 PM
> To: 'Michael Brody'; Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: 'Bhavin Turakhia'; tim@godaddy.com; 'Patricio Valdes'; 
> registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Canceling Renewals?
> 
> 
> Michael,
> 
> I have no idea what it would cost.  I do know though that 
> making changes to a system that handles over 7 million 
> transactions a day is not simply a matter of adding a few sub 
> routines.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Brody [mailto:mbrody@tldsystems.com]
> 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
>