RE: Re[2]: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry

[Paul Stahura <stahura@enom.com>]

There are multiple reasons we state in our contract that
we charge $20 per name to "re-activate" an expired domain,
but the main reason is:

Even though eNom is one of the largest net gaining registrars
(in terms of number of domains) in recent months, we delete about
1,000 names per day.  This costs us $6x1000x45days=$270K per month
in cash that is tied up for the period.  If we were not compensated
for that, then registrants would have no chance to renew
an expired name because we would delete them about 2 days
after expiration, and they would then have to go to the guy
who re-registered their deleted name and pay that guy, or re-register
themselves it if it was still in the pool.  About 100 names "re-activated"
per month at $20 each pays for this carrying cost.  And
we probably do not "re-activate" that many names each month, so we are
actually losing money on it, so we could either raise the price or
cancel the program and delete all names on day 1 after expiration.
We choose to charge for it.  Tucows, who I understand, does not
charge for this service probably makes up for the cost of performing
the service by charging their registrants in other ways, possibly by
charging more for the actual registration.  
We choose to charge a fee to those who 
do not renew before deletion and not penalize those who do
renew their names on-time.

Also, It provides an incentive for registrants to renew their names
on-time, before they expire.
We make exceptions in charging this "re-activate"  fee in special cases too.

Paul
eNom, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: admin@consumer.net [mailto:admin@consumer.net]
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:33 PM
> To: 'Don Brown'
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry
> 
> 
> > What's the beef?  My statements were on the side of the consumer.
> 
> The beef is that everybody sits on these lists, regardless of their
> position, and spouts out the same excuses not to do anything.  The
> Registry is separate, "market forces" will fix the problem, there is a
> committee looking at that, ICANN doesn't look at that issue .... 
> 
> and now they say they searched the world and could only find 
> Crispin as
> the ICANN technical manager.  Is anyone going to seriously 
> argue that is
> nothing more than a payoff for repeating all the excuses 
> above over and
> over and over until people actually think they are legitimate excuses?
> 
> Russ Smith
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html