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

[Larry Erlich <erlich@domainregistry.com>]

Elliot Noss wrote:
> 
> 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.

But I don't consider this better than simply charging
the $6 fee after the redemption grace period and 
*not* deleting. 

Currently: $6 fee charged at beginning of period
Names not deleted by registry

Proposed: $6 fee charged at end of period
Names still not deleted by registry


> We would have to make system changes, but I would strongly
> suggest they will be more than paid for by the released cash.

Well, I don't think that you would disagree that
this might not be the case for a smaller registrar. 

Opensrs has a different situation, and a software change
that you make may benefit you based upon the number
of names you have under management and the fact that
your margin is $4. It's not the same with us. Additionally,
our renewal rates are not the same as your renewal
rates.

Larry Erlich

http://www.DomainRegistry.com

> 
> 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
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------