RE: Long term registrations - Was: RE: [ga] Fwd: LACTLD comments on Zone Transfers

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

Dear Steven,
the real issue is the real cost of managing the registry the way you do it.

There is a basic rule when you sell networking: the customer is not the 
user but the one who needs the network to be used (the reason why 
deregulation the way it was carried was an error).

Identify who is the one who needs .nz to operate and charge him for the 
registration costs. He will foot the bill or find a way to get his money 
back. Your only problem is that he does not find a cheaper way to manage 
.nz: you would then be out of business.
jfc

At 01:28 20/09/02, Steven Heath said:

> > On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Steven Heath wrote:
> >
> > > How would you collect payments/renewals?
>
>On Friday, 20 September 2002 11:00 a.m., Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > For some reason folks seem to presume that we need a system
> > in which names are periodically renewed.
>
><info about payment approach removed>
>
>I agree that many different ways exist to charge for service. I also am
>aware of ccTLD's that charge a 'one time fee' approach.
>
>However, most don't. .ca (CIRA) and .nz (InternetNZ) are perfect example's
>of ccTLD's that have gone from a no fee basis (both used volunteer time of
>University staff and systems) to a 'on going fee'.
>
>If as per the original comment of Jonathan Weinberg ICANN (or some other
>body with the same or greater power) were to use a zone file to 'replace' an
>incumbent ccTLD Manager then they would face major issues, one of the
>biggest for the current system is income collection. If this new body wished
>not to charge for further service this would not eliminate the bigger issue
>of how to identify the registrant.
>
>But back to the comments about payments. Back in the early late 80's and
>early 90's I recall reading about the cost of recording usage and then
>collection costs for long distance calls was a huge amount of the actual
>cost of long distance calls. One could say that the equivalent of per minute
>billing in the name space is charging for changes to the registry and
>compared to the 'all you can eat for a year' approach most ccTLD's have now.
>
>Registries do have a high fixed cost, while a one time fee can set to
>recover this fee over the life of the name (or more exact that registrants
>usage of that name). The issue is how do you determine a life of a name?
>
>Do we set it at 10 years?
>Do we set it at 50 years?
>Do we set it at 2 years?
>
>The expected life of the name is one of the major inputs to determine the 1
>time fee the other of course is the operational costs.
>
>Now, Karl comments on a OTF of $25 and "particularly if updates were paid
>for on a per-occurrence fee schedule.".
>
>My opinion is any fee that is based on the registrant, or their agent, being
>charged to update details would result in lower quality of data compared to
>the a fee based on unlimited changes being allowed. Lower quality is not a
>good thing.
>
>Steven Heath
>..nz news & views
>http://radio.weblogs.com/0110729/
>--
>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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 09/09/02