<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[registrars] Bounced Message from John Wong
As an interesting suggestion, and without comment on the various payment
and policy issues under either plan, would it be feasible for the
registry to support *both* the auto-renew and auto-delete policies, and
put an option on the registrar profile screen to allow the registrar to
select one mode or the other (with corresponding payment terms, grace
periods, etc) for newly expiring domains? Originally, we disliked the
current auto-renew policy, but we have managed to tune our systems to
accurately manage explicit deletions and explicit renewals. The current
auto-renew policy and it does seem to offer some additional safety
margin for the registrants as well as for us against inadvertant domain
deletions. A registrar-selectable option would permit each registrar to
select the mode of operation that best suits their business model and
customer base.
Or as a more creative suggestion, perhaps the option for auto-renew or
auto-delete could be implemented not only as a registrar-global option,
but individually for each domain. Each domain could have a new status
value that would indicate if the domain would be treated under
auto-delete or auto-renew policy. This might allow the registrar to
offer/sell some additional options to their customers. I suppose that
this latter suggestion could be implemented solely at the registrar
system level, but offered at the registry level it would contribute to
some amount of uniformity with the two kinds of operations.
Regards,
John Wong
Domain Registration Services
"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> 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
>
>
--------------6C84D077D7A309EE66F41747
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
As an interesting suggestion, and without comment on the various payment
and policy issues under either plan, would it be feasible for the registry
to support *both* the auto-renew and auto-delete policies, and put an option
on the registrar profile screen to allow the registrar to select one mode
or the other (with corresponding payment terms, grace periods, etc)
for newly expiring domains? Originally, we disliked the current
auto-renew
policy, but we have managed to tune our systems to accurately manage
explicit
deletions and explicit renewals. The current auto-renew policy and
it does seem to offer some additional safety margin for the registrants
as well as for us against inadvertant domain deletions. A
registrar-selectable
option would permit each registrar to select the mode of operation that
best suits their business model and customer base.
<br>Or as a more creative suggestion, perhaps the option for auto-renew
or auto-delete could be implemented not only as a registrar-global option,
but individually for each domain. Each domain could have a new status
value that would indicate if the domain would be treated under auto-delete
or auto-renew policy. This might allow the registrar to offer/sell some
additional options to their customers. I suppose that this latter
suggestion could be implemented solely at the registrar system level, but
offered at the registry level it would contribute to some amount of
uniformity
with the two kinds of operations.
<p>Regards,
<br>John Wong
<br>Domain Registration Services
<br>
<p>"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE> <span
class=252263412-06092002><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font
size=-1>Mike/Tim,</font></font></font></span><span
class=252263412-06092002></span><span class=252263412-06092002><font
face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>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.</font></font></font></span><span
class=252263412-06092002></span><span
class=252263412-06092002><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font
size=-1>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).</font></font></font></span><span
class=252263412-06092002></span><span class=252263412-06092002><font
face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>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.</font></font></font></span><span
class=252263412-06092002></span><span
class=252263412-06092002><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font
size=-1>Chuck</font></font></font></span>
<blockquote style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div class="OutlookMessageHeader" dir="ltr"><font face="Tahoma"><font
size=-1>-----Original
Message-----</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>From:</b> Michael D. Palage [<A
HREF="mailto:michael@palage.com">mailto:michael@palage.com</A>]</font></font
>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 06,
2002 2:52 AM</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>To:</b> tim@godaddy.com;
registrars@dnso.org</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Cc:</b> Chuck Gomes</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Subject:</b> RE: [registrars]
Auto-Renew v. Auto-Delete</font></font>
<br> </div>
<span
class=980044006-06092002><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font
size=-1>Thanks
Tim,</font></font></font></span><span
class=980044006-06092002></span><span class=980044006-06092002><font
face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>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.</font></font></font></span><span
class=980044006-06092002></span><span class=980044006-06092002><font
face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>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.</font></font></font></span><span
class=980044006-06092002></span><span
class=980044006-06092002><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font
size=-1>Mike </font></font></font></span>
<blockquote>
<div class="OutlookMessageHeader" dir="ltr"><font face="Tahoma"><font
size=-1>-----Original
Message-----</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>From:</b> owner-registrars@dnso.org
[<A
HREF="mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org">mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org</A>
]<b>On Behalf Of </b>Tim Ruiz</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 06,
2002 2:29 AM</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>To:</b>
michael@palage.com</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Cc:</b>
registrars@dnso.org</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Subject:</b> RE: [registrars]
Auto-Renew v. Auto-Delete</font></font>
<br> </div>
Michael,
<p>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.
<p>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.
<p>Tim
<br>-------- Original Message --------
<br>Subject: RE: [registrars] Auto-Renew v. Auto-Delete
<br>From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
<br>Date: Thu, September 5, 2002 10:43 pm
<br>To: <registrars@dnso.org>
<p>Elliot:
<p>I did think about the words "grace period". However, the first thought
<br>that came to my mind is ADDITIONAL FEES. The grace period is not going
<br>to be free, in fact it is likely to be set at a highly level to
<br>protect against potential abuse. Therefore, why should I have to pay
<br>additional fees for a redemption grace period renewal or feel
<br>compelled to purchase a WLS subscription as insurance, when I can
<br>chose to use a registrar that utilizes the 45 days grace period. This
<br>is an important feature that I would use in selecting a registrar.
<p>The change you seek in payment policy is totally within your control
<br>today, by just deleting the domain name after the auto-renewal.
<p>A little help from another registrar would be greatly appreciated
<br>because I feel that I am missing something here.
<p>Mike
<p>-----Original Message-----
<br>From: Elliot Noss [<A
HREF="mailto:enoss@tucows.com">mailto:enoss@tucows.com</A>]
<br>Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 1:09 AM
<br>To: 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
<br>Subject: RE: [registrars] Auto-Renew v. Auto-Delete
<br>
<p>Michael:
<p>Both the renewal grace period and the redemption grace period would
<br>have protected you in your case. The issue, again, is with the
<br>registry charging us presumptively during this grace period.
<p>Think about the words "grace period". Clearly they connote a period
of
<br>grace given to the existing registrant on the existing term of
<br>registration. These grace periods are appropriate and the ONLY issue
<br>is when the registry charges registrars for a renewal. Clearly, this
<br>should be when an actual renewal takes place.
<p>The only thing I am advocating for is a change in payment policy. Full
<br>stop.
<p>And now, to bed.
<p>Regards
<br>
<br>
<p>-----Original Message-----
<br>From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [<A
HREF="mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org">mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org</A>
]
On
<br>Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
<br>Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 12:13 AM
<br>To: registrars@dnso.org
<br>Subject: [registrars] Auto-Renew v. Auto-Delete
<p>Elliot/Bruce:
<p>Wearing my registrant hat. I would have lost palage.com if the
<br>auto-delete
<br>policy as you advocate was in place. Despite my attempts to correct
<br>and transfer my domain name, it was not done in a timely fashion due
<br>to complication by my registrar of record. The 45 day window probably
<br>saved my
<br>a significant amount of grief.
<p>Wearing my registrar hat. The ability to control your float is totally
<br>within in your discretion since you can delete the domain name at
<br>expiration. I know that several registrars with corporate clients use
<br>this
<br>45 day window to verify the customers intent and minimize potential
<br>liability. As a large scale registrar, the potential risks/liabilities
<br>associated with a 45 day float in connection with a million plus names
<br>is
<br>considerable, and may outweigh the benefits of accidental deletions.
<br>However, the risk benefit analysis may not be the same for a small
to
<br>mid-size registrar with a small portfolio.
<p>Regarding, Bruce's concern about an uniform delete policy. I believe
<br>this is
<br>an important objective but not one that subject registrars to
<br>potential legal liability by having an auto-delete policy. I think
<br>there should be other potential solutions to an uniform delete policy.
<p>Mike
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>-----Original Message-----
<br>From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [<A
HREF="mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org">mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org</A>
]On
<br>Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
<br>Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 11:38 PM
<br>To: 'Elliot Noss'; Rob Hall; David Wascher
<br>Cc: registrars@dnso.org
<br>Subject: RE: [registrars] Re: Registrars Collecting on Multi-Year
<br>Registrations
<br>
<p>>
<br>>
<br>> We need all remember that we are currently pushing the
<br>> Verisign registry to
<br>> change the auto-renew policy to an auto-delete/explicit renew
<br>> which would
<br>> free up significant dollars for all of us that currently gets
<br>> tied up in
<br>> maintaining an unnecessarily high float with the registry.
<br>>
<p>Melbourne IT supports this principle. It also has the benefit of
<br>better uniformity in delete procedures.
<br>It is used in the new ".au" registry.
<p>Regards,
<br>Bruce Tonkin
<br> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</html>
--------------6C84D077D7A309EE66F41747--
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|