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

["Elliot Noss" <enoss@tucows.com>]

We are saying the same thing. The delete would not take place until the end
of the new redemption grace period so there would be no concern about
inadvertance. We would have to make system changes, but I would strongly
suggest they will be more than paid for by the released cash.

Based upon the below, I think we are in agreement :-).

Regards

Elliot Noss
Tucows inc.
416-538-5494

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Super-User [mailto:root@netscott.com]On Behalf Of Larry Erlich
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 4:59 PM
> To: Elliot Noss
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Re: Registrars Collecting on Multi-Year
> Registrations
>
>
> Elliot Noss wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps I was unclear on what we are discussing.
> >
> > Currently, the registry charges each of us for a renewal for
> each and every
> > name that goes into the renewal grace period. Registrars are
> then credited
> > back for the names that they explicitly delete. Currently,
> nearly 85% of all
> > names that go into the renewal grace period do not renew. This
> means that
> > YOU have a constant float with VGRS that equals 85% of your
> average names in
> > the this state. This is real money and there is no need for it.
> It is just
> > as easy/difficult to send an explicit renew as it is to send an explicit
> > delete.
>
> So at what point would you want VGRS to delete the
> name?
>
> >
> > You state "(t)his is a bad idea", but do not say why, so I
> cannot respond
> > specifically to your concerns.
>
> For one, it would involved a redesign of a system (our system)
> that is setup to handle the situation the current way.
>
> Additionally, there is a certain safety in having,
> as a default, that a name ISN'T deleted unless specifically
> requested.  In the case of a default delete, a system
> error or connection problem on the part of the registrar could
> cause names to be deleted  simply because the registrar
> couldn't contact the registry to issue the renew command.
>
> Addressing the cash flow issue, there is no reason why VGRS
> couldn't modify to not charge for renewals until the 45 day
> period had passed instead of at the start of the period.
>
> Larry Erlich
>
> http://www.DomainRegistry.com
>
>
> >
> > I also cannot tell you for sure when/which meeting this was
> discussed at,
> > but it was previously tabled and discussed and we (Tucows) have
> been pushing
> > VGRS on this. When we are pushing we are not claiming in any way to
> > represent the constituency, but VGRS have certainly heard this
> from numerous
> > registrars.
> >
> > Happy to provide more data, either on list, or feel free to call.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Elliot Noss
> > Tucows inc.
> > 416-538-5494
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Larry Erlich
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 2:00 PM
> > > To: Elliot Noss
> > > Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [registrars] Re: Registrars Collecting on Multi-Year
> > > Registrations
> > >
> > >
> > > Elliot Noss wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We need all remember that we are currently pushing the Verisign
> > > registry to
> > > > change the auto-renew policy to an auto-delete/explicit renew
> > >
> > > Who is pushing this? I don't remember seeing any
> > > discussion, at least on this list, about this. This
> > > is a bad idea.
> > >
> > > Larry Erlich
> > >
> > > http://www.DomainRegistry.com
> > >
> > >
> > > > which would
> > > > free up significant dollars for all of us that currently
> gets tied up in
> > > > maintaining an unnecessarily high float with the registry.
> > > >
> > > > I believe that the Verisign registry understands the issues
> here and may
> > > > consider changing the policy (I urge you all to pressure
> them further in
> > > > this regard). If this change is made, some of the comments
> > > below no longer
> > > > hold.
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, I agree with Donny's interpretation of the agreement and
> > > if I recall
> > > > correctly ICANN previously published an advisory against
> this practice.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Elliot Noss
> > > > Tucows inc.
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > > > Behalf Of Rob Hall
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 12:22 AM
> > > > > To: David Wascher
> > > > > Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> > > > > Subject: [registrars] Re: Registrars Collecting on Multi-Year
> > > > > Registrations
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, it is simpler than that.
> > > > >
> > > > > The registrar doesn't need to do anything but not delete the
> > > domain for 4
> > > > > years.  Because the Registry automatically renews the domain,
> > > and charges
> > > > > the Registrar, all one needs to do is not delete the domain.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, the Registrar needs to be clear in their contract that
> > > > > they pay
> > > > > the Registry in this fashion.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the plus side, are
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Better customer service
> > > > > 2) Reduced liability for fraud and changed minds
> > > > > 3) And yes, last but not least, the Interest earned on the
> > > money (that is
> > > > > typically held in a deposit account) goes to the
> Registrar, not the
> > > > > Registry.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would be happy to reconsider should the Registry implement a
> > > > > system that:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1)  Allows a Registrar to delete a domain, and returns to the
> > > Registrar a
> > > > > credit for any remaining full years (after all, the Registry
> > > gets to sell
> > > > > this domain again for the same time it has already sold it)
> > > > >
> > > > > 2)  Allows a Registrar to delete a domain for Fraud and
> chargeback and
> > > > > obtain a full refund
> > > > >
> > > > > 3)  Charges a Registrar less for multi-year registrations,
> > > > > recognizing that
> > > > > interest is earned by the money sitting in the Registry
> account  (for
> > > > > example, on a 10 year registration, if the Registry were to buy
> > > > > an annuity
> > > > > that paid out $6 per year, it would only them less than $45
> > > (or 4.50 per
> > > > > year).  Why should the Registry reap all the rewards of Interest
> > > > > on service
> > > > > not yet delivered. Registrars can use this Interest to offer
> > > a lower cost
> > > > > registration to consumers. It would also encourage us to sell
> > > multi-year
> > > > > registrations.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rob.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > David Wascher writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > So Rob,
> > > > > > If a customer wants a domain for 4 years does the customer pay
> > > > > upfront for
> > > > > > the 4 years? Then the registrar system has to keep track and do
> > > > > a renewal
> > > > > > every year on the date of expiration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This allows the registrar to keep the registration fee of $18
> > > > > as a float for
> > > > > > 3 years instead. If the registrant transfers the domain the
> > > > > first year what
> > > > > > happens to the other 3 years worth of money?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This may be a business model but practical for who the
> > > registrar or the
> > > > > > registrant?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ::-----Original Message-----
> > > > > > ::From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
> > > [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > > > > ::Behalf Of Rob Hall
> > > > > > ::Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 2:26 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
> > > > > > ::
> > > > > > ::
> > > > > > ::
> > > > > > ::
> > > > > > ::
> > > > > > ::
> > > > > > ::
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
> > > 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
> 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------