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

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

Hello Michael,

To document the Australian (e.g for .com.au) approach:

(1) On the domain name expiry date - the name is undelegated by the registry
(removed from zonefile)

(2) 14 days later the name is deleted by the registry (ie a 14 day grace
period)

(3) The registrar is charged at the point when the renew command is sent

Now the 14 day period maybe too short, and a redemption period (as proposed
by ICANN) is an improvement on this.

The reason why you would not just delete the name on the expiry date, is
that when the registrant has failed to keep their contact details up to
date, the undelegation step is an important step in getting the registrant
to contact you.  It would be unreasonable to undelegate a domain name before
the expiry date.

The approach above is also fair when a single company operates as both
registry and registrar.  At present Verisign gets an unfair advantage in the
current process, as there is no net cost for them with a system that charges
the registrar at the beginning of the grace period.


Regards,
Bruce Tonkin


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:44 PM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Auto-Renew v. Auto-Delete
> 
> 
> 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
> >
>