On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2007, Tony Finch wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, David Conrad wrote:
> > >
> > > Even if a delay were imposed, I'm not sure I see how this would actually
> > > help
> > > as I would assume it would require folks to actually look at the list of
> > > newly
> > > created domains and discriminate between the ones that were created for
> > > good
> > > and the ones created for ill. How would one do this?
> >
> > A good start would be to forbid the delegation of newly-registered
> > domains that have not yet been paid for.
>
> Define paid for. Paid for == bank said yes, or Paid for == bank said yes and
> then
> said "Whoa no; thats not really right."
>
> (I truely wonder what the domain registrars are seeing as CC transaction
> failure
> rates, and why the banks haven't stepped in.)
The banks don't lose enough money to warrant action, at least action
specific to these registrars.
TWC (Transaction Without Card) is something banks lose billions of USD
every year on. In most cases though, they are able to respond accordingly
and then the registrar (not the victim user or the bank) are the ones
losing money. Further action would mean further loss.
Gadi.
>
>
> Adrian
>
