RE: [registrars] Verisign registry requirements for credit during 45 day grace period after domain name expiry

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

yea :) pardon the error - recalculaiton ......

50%-65% of domains would be in auto-renew - which leads to between $10.8
million - $14 million in auto-renew money

if of this 10% actually renew, it leaves approximately $9 million+ in
domains which wont be renewd - interest free working capital .....

so the final result comes almost same :)

bhavin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Rob Hall
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:12 PM
> To: Registrars Mail List
> Subject: FW: [registrars] Verisign registry requirements for credit
> during 45 day grace period after domain name expiry
>
>
>
> Uh, not meaning to defend verisign, as I agree with Bruce's recomendation,
> but your math is a bit off.
>
> You have assumed that all domains are not renewed before the expiry date,
> when in fact, most are.  I Bruce Tonkin's email, I believe his
> estimate was
> only 10% of those that pass the expiry date get renewed, and
> given that the
> average renewal rate seems to be somewhere between 35% and 50%, it would
> appear the vast majority of renewing domains are actually renewed
> before the
> expiry date (which makes sense).
>
> Rob.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Bhavin Turakhia
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 2:03 AM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Verisign registry requirements for credit
> during 45 day grace period after domain name expiry
>
>
> hi,
>
> i agree. the former system is better, where Verisign does not debit the
> account unless the 45 day grace period is over.
>
> assuming there is approximately 30 million domains out there
> means in any 45
> day period there are averagely 3.6 million domains stuck on
> Auto-renew. This
> translates to a 21.6 million dollars in working capital obtained by the
> registry, of which if average 50% domains get renewed, translates to 10.3
> million US Dollars interest free short term borrowing for Verisign :)
>
> bhavin
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:10 AM
> > To: 'registrars@dnso.org'
> > Subject: [registrars] Verisign registry requirements for credit during
> > 45 day grace period after domain name expiry
> >
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > At present the Verisign registry requires a credit balance to be
> > maintained
> > by registrars.
> >
> > After a domain name passes the expiry date, the registry
> "auto-renews" the
> > name, and charges against the funds maintained by the registrar.
> >
> > There is then a 45 day grace period, during which the domain name may be
> > deleted, and the registry fee refunded.
> >
> > Given that probably only around 50% of domain names are renewed,
> > there is a
> > need for a registrar to maintain a higher credit balance than necessary
> > (unless the registrar chooses to not take advantage of the 45 day grace
> > period, and explicitly delete the domain on the day of expiry).
> >
> > Melbourne IT feels that either:
> > (1) Verisign should not debit the account balance until the end
> of the 45
> > day grace period
> > (2) Verisign should only debit the registrar at the beginning of
> > the 45 day
> > grace period for an amount that reflects the average renewal
> rate of that
> > particular registrar (e.g if the registrar on average renews 10%
> > of domains
> > by the end of the 45 day period, then the registry could debit the
> > registrars account by that number of domains at the beginning of
> > the 45 day
> > period).
> >
> > What do other registrars think?
> >
> > We have found that as our total number of domains under management has
> > grown, the requirement for a large credit balance is increased
> (and hence
> > the opportunity cost of providing those funds that could be used
> > effectively
> > elsewhere).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bruce Tonkin
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>