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

[Paul Stahura <stahura@enom.com>]

A questions:
If it is true that the RRP does not allow renew command
on domains that are flagged for transfer (I believe it is true), 
and if there is no way to increase the number of years at the registry
before a transfer occurs without nacking it (it would be nice if
someone, Rob?, could respond to bhavin's question below), then wouldn't
we be able to figure out which registrars are practicing
shorting muliyear registrations by keeping track of registrars
nacking the first transfer reqest on names that have muli-year registrations
in that
registrar's whois output (but that in reality are not really registered for
more than one year at the registry)?

I agree that it would help eliminate problems 
if verisign-grs could display
expiration date in registry whois output.
Plus it would incent registars to not participate in the
practice and therefore generate more revenue for the registry
from those that do since they would have to pay for the outlying years. 

I also agree with Tim (and whoever else) that if a name is deleted, 
that we should be refunded the other years beyond one.  This
is the only excuse I can see for particing shorting muliyear registrations.

I agree with the time value of money argument, but
it is offset by the problem created if the registar goes under.






>> Mike Lampson said:
>> Keep in mind that the RRP does not allow a "Renew" command on 
>> a domain which is currently in the process of being 
>> Transferred.  The losing Registrar must Nack the Transfer, 
>> add the additional years and then the gaining Registrar must 
>> resend the Transfer Request.

>bhavin said
>Aah yes the oversight ..... I believe the feasibility study fails then
>:)

>Incidentally are there any registrars doing this rght now ....... How do
>they handle transfers ??