RE: [registrars] Registrars Collecting on Multi-Year Registrations

["Donny Simonton" <donny@intercosmos.com>]

I agree that it would be nice to be able to handle fraud better with the
different registries.  And giving us a lower price based on the longer
registrations periods would be great, but with the stock prices of
certain registries falling I don't see that happening anytime soon.

But back to our original problem.

The ICANN agreement that all of us agreed to states:

3.2.2 Within five (5) business days after receiving any updates from the
Registered Name Holder to the data elements listed in Subsections
3.2.1.2, 3.1.2.3, and 3.2.1.6 for any Registered Name Registrar
sponsors, Registrar shall submit the updated data elements to, or shall
place those elements in the Registry Database operated by the Registry
Operator

Those items are:  The name of the Registered Name being registered;The
IP addresses of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for
the Registered Name; The corresponding names of those nameservers;
Unless automatically generated by the registry system, the identity of
the Registrar; Unless automatically generated by the registry system,
the expiration date of the registration; and Any other data the Registry
Operator requires be submitted to it.

If I read this correctly this says that you must submit any and all
changes to the registry including new expiration dates.  So "floating" a
registration goes against the ICANN agreement.

Donny

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
> Behalf Of Bhavin Turakhia
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 11:50 PM
> To: 'Rob Hall'; 'Donny Simonton'; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Registrars Collecting on Multi-Year
> Registrations
> 
> My two bits -
> 
> I would side with Rob. Here are the concerns addressed on both sides -
> 
> 1. this model would automatically allow lesser losses in case of
> fraudulent transactions. Since Verisign is doing nothing to prevent
> this, we as Registrars should prevent it nevertheless
> 
> 2. The primary concern would be in the case of a transfer - transfers
> would result in the customer having overpaid. this however can easily
be
> handles since the registrar gets a notification just before a transfer
> away, and so he may issue the renewal command immediately before
> acknowlerdging a transfer
> 
> 3. if a registrar can make some money on float I do not see it to be
> illegal or wrong in any fashion. As it is margins are low, and losses
> due to fraud etc are high.
> 
> 4. there is no risk of the domain getting deleted since verisign
anyways
> does an auto-renew and the registrar simply needs to take no action to
> make sure the domain continues perpetually
> 
> bhavin
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
> > [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall
> > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 3:13 AM
> > To: Donny Simonton; registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Registrars Collecting on Multi-Year
> > Registrations
> >
> >
> > Donny,
> >
> > I am not sure how one is even remotely related to the other.
> >
> > Deleting a domain before expiry has nothing to do with
> > renewing it incrementally.
> >
> > Rob.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Donny Simonton
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 3:06 PM
> > To: registrars@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] Registrars Collecting on Multi-Year
> > Registrations
> >
> >
> > It's about as valid as the business model when a customer
> > tells you 90 days before a domain expires that they will not
> > be renewing a domain and some registrars delete the domain then.
> >
> > You don't want to renew this domain, that's we have now
> > deleted it. Even though they have paid for a full year.
> >
> > Donny
> > directNIC.com
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
> > [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Rob Hall
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 1:26 PM
> > > To: registrars@dnso.org
> > > Subject: RE: [registrars] Registrars Collecting on Multi-Year
> > > Registrations
> > >
> > > This is a valid business model for many reasons.
> > >
> > > It is not against our Registry contract, and should not be
> > until the
> > > registry model changes.
> > >
> > > Rob.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
[mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Mike Lampson
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 1:17 PM
> > > To: registrars@dnso.org
> > > Subject: [registrars] Registrars Collecting on Multi-Year
> > Registrations
> > >
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > This is a terrible business practice as documented by VeriSign.
> > > Prohibition against such practices needs to be in our Code
> > of Conduct.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Mike Lampson
> > > The Registry at Info Avenue, LLC
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "VeriSign Global Registry Services"
> > > To: VeriSign Registrars
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 12:42 PM
> > > Subject: Registry Advisory: Multi-Year Registrations
> > >
> > >
> > > To All Registrars:
> > >
> > > As you know, running effective renewal campaigns depends
> > upon keeping
> > > accurate customer data, including contact information for reaching
> > them by
> > > e-mail, direct mail, or phone. Equally important is ensuring
> > expiration
> > > dates between VeriSign Registry and registrar are consistent.
> > >
> > > The sale of a multi-year registration that is registered
> > with VeriSign
> > > Registry for only one year will create a discrepancy in the
> > expiration
> > > date, meaning you have to manage separate expiration dates for
> > registrations,
> > > adding cycles to your renewal efforts and increasing the
> > chance that a
> > > registration may be inadvertently deleted.  Additionally,
> > registrants
> > who
> > > have paid for a multi-year registration but later become aware
that
> > they
> > > only received a one-year registration may question the registrar's
> > right
> > > to
> > > engage in such a transaction. Indeed, processing multi-year
> > registrations
> > > as
> > > one-year registrations will create a liability on the part of the
> > > registrar should the registrant choose to transfer its
> > registration to
> > > another registrar.  The transfer process causes the discrepancy to
> > > surface
> > because
> > > the full registration term purchased by the registrant will
> > not carry
> > > forward to the new registrar. All registrars are required to
process
> > all
> > > domain name registrations and renewals through VeriSign
> > Registry with
> > the
> > > same term length as was agreed to by the registrant.
> > >
> > > All registrars should periodically crosscheck their data
> > with VeriSign
> > > Registry data available in the weekly Domain Name reports.  Our
> > Customer
> > > Service Representatives are always available to assist you with
any
> > > questions you have on discrepancies between your
> > registration data and
> > > expiration dates with VeriSign Registry. If you have any questions
> > > regarding this Registry Advisory, please contact Customer Service
> > >
> > > Chris Sheridan
> > > Manager, Customer Service
> > > VeriSign Global Registry Services
> > > www.verisign-grs.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>