RE: [registrars] Auto-Renew v. Auto-Delete

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

JP,

To my knowledge we have never talked about unused portion of deleted
multiyear registrations. Does I-Holdings credit registrants for such unused
portions?

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: JP [mailto:jp@dotregistrar.com]
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:27 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] Auto-Renew v. Auto-Delete


Chuck,

I am glad to hear that you are considering it; what about the interest of
most of the registrars as to have the ability to recoup on the unused
portion of deleted multiyear registrations?

JP

> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 08:47:05 -0400
> To: "'Michael D. Palage'" <michael@palage.com>, tim@godaddy.com,
> registrars@dnso.org
> Cc: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Auto-Renew v. Auto-Delete
> 

> Mike/Tim,
> 
> Based on a variety of requests from registrars, we have been carefully
> exploring this issue for the past couple months.  Mike - your assessment
is
> incorrect.  We would actually like to go to an explicit renew/auto delete
> approach.  But I personally have been arguing against it because I thought
> that this would create a bad situation for registrars.  A week ago I
actually
> discussed this was Elliot and he was very supportive.  What would help us
is
> to get a broader perspective of all registrars views on this as soon as
> possible.  Anything you can do to make that happen would be greatly
> appreciated.
> 
> Specifically, what would be helpful is to know whether registrars would
> support a requirement that registrars MUST explicitly renew a name in the
> renew grace period.  If a name was not explicitly renewed, it would
> automatically go into the delete cycle (including the RGP period in the
> future).
> 
> A related idea that Elliot suggested is this: for some to-be-determined
period
> at the end of the renew grace period (e.g., last 15 days), all names not
> explicitly renewed must be put on Registrar Hold. The purpose would be to
use
> that as a last warning to registrants that their name was in jeopardy.
> 
> Chuck
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
>> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 2:52 AM
>> To: tim@godaddy.com; registrars@dnso.org
>> Cc: Chuck Gomes
>> Subject: RE: [registrars] Auto-Renew v. Auto-Delete
>> 
> Thanks Tim,
> 
> This helped a lot in clearing up my perceived misunderstanding. However,
if
> you read my most recent post, Pandora's Box, I believe VeriSign is likely
to
> just say no. Based upon the huge sums of money that VeriSign Registry is
> sitting on, I just do not see them being magnanimous. If we were to try to
> mandate an ICANN policy, I would bet the house VeriSign Registry is likely
to
> say that they relied upon this float in arriving at their $6 dollar price.
> Thus if payment terms were changed by ICANN policy, VeriSign Registry
could
> request a fee increase.
> 
> As I stated hopefully I am wrong, and Chuck Gomes will send me an email
> telling me VeriSign Registry will agree to waive the fees during the 45
day
> grace period (I copied him on this email). However, I would not hold my
breath
> believing that VeriSign Registry is just going to throw a huge financial
bone
> to us registrars.
> 
> Mike 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf
>> Of Tim Ruiz
>> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 2:29 AM
>> To: michael@palage.com
>> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
>> Subject: RE: [registrars] Auto-Renew v. Auto-Delete
>> 
> Michael,
> 
> If I understand this all correctly, what Eliot and Bruce are suggesting is
> that the 45 day grace period stays in tact, during which the domain is not
yet
> made available for registration, but the registrar is not yet charged
> anything. If the registrar does not explicitly renew the domain before the
45
> days are up it is released. The registrar is only charged when/if the
explicit
> renewal takes place.
> 
> If that's what we're talking about then I don't see what the problem is,
> especially once the Redemption Grace Period is in place. We've been
watching
> the float we need growing month by month and we haven't even gotten to our
> first 2 year renewals.
> 
> Tim
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Auto-Renew v. Auto-Delete
> From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
> Date: Thu, September 5, 2002 10:43 pm
> To: <registrars@dnso.org>
> 
> Elliot:
> 
> I did think about the words "grace period". However, the first thought
> that came to my mind is ADDITIONAL FEES. The grace period is not going
> to be free, in fact it is likely to be set at a highly level to
> protect against potential abuse. Therefore, why should I have to pay
> additional fees for a redemption grace period renewal or feel
> compelled to purchase a WLS subscription as insurance, when I can
> chose to use a registrar that utilizes the 45 days grace period. This
> is an important feature that I would use in selecting a registrar.
> 
> The change you seek in payment policy is totally within your control
> today, by just deleting the domain name after the auto-renewal.
> 
> A little help from another registrar would be greatly appreciated
> because I feel that I am missing something here.
> 
> Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elliot Noss [mailto:enoss@tucows.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 1:09 AM
> To: 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Auto-Renew v. Auto-Delete
> 
> 
> Michael:
> 
> Both the renewal grace period and the redemption grace period would
> have protected you in your case. The issue, again, is with the
> registry charging us presumptively during this grace period.
> 
> Think about the words "grace period". Clearly they connote a period of
> grace given to the existing registrant on the existing term of
> registration. These grace periods are appropriate and the ONLY issue
> is when the registry charges registrars for a renewal. Clearly, this
> should be when an actual renewal takes place.
> 
> The only thing I am advocating for is a change in payment policy. Full
> stop.
> 
> And now, to bed.
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
> Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 12:13 AM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] Auto-Renew v. Auto-Delete
> 
> Elliot/Bruce:
> 
> Wearing my registrant hat. I would have lost palage.com if the
> auto-delete
> policy as you advocate was in place. Despite my attempts to correct
> and transfer my domain name, it was not done in a timely fashion due
> to complication by my registrar of record. The 45 day window probably
> saved my
> a significant amount of grief.
> 
> Wearing my registrar hat. The ability to control your float is totally
> within in your discretion since you can delete the domain name at
> expiration. I know that several registrars with corporate clients use
> this
> 45 day window to verify the customers intent and minimize potential
> liability. As a large scale registrar, the potential risks/liabilities
> associated with a 45 day float in connection with a million plus names
> is
> considerable, and may outweigh the benefits of accidental deletions.
> However, the risk benefit analysis may not be the same for a small to
> mid-size registrar with a small portfolio.
> 
> Regarding, Bruce's concern about an uniform delete policy. I believe
> this is
> an important objective but not one that subject registrars to
> potential legal liability by having an auto-delete policy. I think
> there should be other potential solutions to an uniform delete policy.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 11:38 PM
> To: 'Elliot Noss'; Rob Hall; David Wascher
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Re: Registrars Collecting on Multi-Year
> Registrations
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> We need all remember that we are currently pushing the
>> Verisign registry to
>> change the auto-renew policy to an auto-delete/explicit renew
>> which would
>> free up significant dollars for all of us that currently gets
>> tied up in
>> maintaining an unnecessarily high float with the registry.
>> 
> 
> Melbourne IT supports this principle. It also has the benefit of
> better uniformity in delete procedures.
> It is used in the new ".au" registry.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
>