Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for DeletedNames

[Abel Wisman <abel@able-towers.com>]

Alex, assembly

On Sat, 2002-02-16 at 05:19, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> I'm not so sure. E.g. Register.com's service called
> SafeRenew is simply an attempt to charge the credit card
> the renewal fee. Not everyone pays or even wants to
> pay the domain fees by credit card, and even for those
> who do, credit card information is also subject to change.

In all honesty, there are very few who do not use CC payments, and the
reasoning for not being able to pay small amounts to a possible
constituency (cost per payment) is the basic reasoning for that, if the
amounts paid for registration or renewal were paid by bank, several
points in the registrar agreement would not be worked out according to
that agreement, most important being one needs to have ensured payment.


> First of all, I don't think that a new profitable 
> monopoly has to be created to implement this. If anything,
> registry and registrar may be allowed to charge a very 
> small fee for handling the late renewal. If
> 0.50-2.00 US$ are an educated guess for the core costs 
> of a domain name at the registry level, 
> (http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-February/001437.html)
> the late renewal fee should definitely be less.
> If -- as you seem to imply -- there was no 
> big problem (i.e. if all expired domains are due to 
> lack of interest of their current holders), the fee 
> would simply never be charged.

The mere thought of having to pay additional fees to the registry for
something registrars are doing already and free of charge is a "stomach
turner" Tucows / OpenSRS handles the matter in the perfect way, without
any charges to anyone whatsoever.

The earlier given example that a lot of money would be tied up by these
domains in their "grace period" is not completely true, since the
registrars have 3 months to pay those bills in which time the fees get
returned so payment stays stale.

I support the idea being enforced to all registrars, but then make sure
they keep doing it for free, if they want to charge their customers,
that's up to them, after all, it is a free market (still)  but it is not
something the registry needs to be involved in and yet grab more money.

It is my opinion that ICANN should start viewing the registry for what
it is, a REGISTER and not as a business making new products and selling
them, that is the part the registrars need to take care off, not a
registry. 
I wonder what people would say if their local deed offices started
making new "moneymaking" markets with their stronghold on the registers
they hold, or more European, when the town registry (where they hold
your birth certificate, and other paperwork) would start inventing "new
articles to sell" 


Stay with basics, registries are made to register (sic) and stick to
that, not to "make markets".

abel


--
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