RE: Re: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry
I am not excited about this ICANN role of creating the Registrars industry
to fake competition instead of creating real competition among TLD
Registries in respecting commerce and Internet rules (RFC 920) and IANA
mission. But now you Registrars are here and you have to survive and we
have to survive [with] you.
What I do object to your position is this:
- the Registrars consistuency has not come with an united position on the
way to solve your problems so we the Registrants may understand the rules
of your game.
- you are far too dependent from VeriSign solutions while some competition
to VeriSIgn Registries develops. This makes you too economically weak - you
shows it - for us to feel at ease.
- you have not proposed common adapted tools for the markets (plural) you
interface. This is true too for NetSol as a Registrar.
As a Registrant I have been transferred from Registrars Inc. to NetSol
after their purchase of Registrars Inc. The information I received (?) or
did not receive as a large DN holder and a reseller is not adapted to what
I do and the way I worked with Registrars. I understand NetSol problem's in
interfacing with different types of operations. But I also observe they
mostly spend their mails and phone in "we thank you for your
patience/someone is going to respond" and delays. This makes us very
uncertain about their rules - I have 300 overdue DNs because I do not know
how to renew them and pay (we also are used to test their new database
system). I got these names rerouted to a Registrars Inc. add page during 3
days by mistake and another customer got 13,000. It was nigthmare and big,
big money loss.
I feel this is a general need. We suffer the lack of a Registrant
constituency with Individual, Bulk, Reseller, Corporate working groups.
When I am proposed nice looking HTML pages with 20 DNs to click per page to
manage bulk renewals or changes for 2000 DNs, there is a problem. I need
plain ASCII reports and mail registrations as I had with NSI and
Registrars. IMHO the procedures and protocols should be discussed and
agreed upon between Registrars and Registrants constituencies.
May I suggest something: the gTLD have created a mailing list now quite
active. Why the Registrars would not do the same - may be at the initiative
of VRSN (Chuck?). We could discuss these kind of things, find patches, work
out solutions, save and make money. I suppose ccTLDs could also help and
benefit from this. We have to accept that more and more Registrars will
interface many different Registries. Since they are here, they will be the
core of the DN sales. So the protocols and procedures must come from them
and they must interface their market to know it. Otherwise it is cacophony,
instability, money loss.
I would suggest another response to your problem fo renewal. You permit
people to register indefinitly and to pay yearly. So you know they reniew.
You make that service paid an extra 50 cent per DN and present these DNs as
SafeDNs with a permanant holdership insurance included - and you drop the
other DNs which are not renewed (the Registrant has the choice). Obviously
the day the people pay the renewal date is the inital registration
birthday. You just make them to pay an extra .50 the day they renew for
them not to make it too often.
The Registrars which permits Registrants to transfer anytime for .50 extra
or free over a certain number of DNs, will for sure soon get the patronage
of every bulk Registrants - or keep them. Our problem is not to renew and
pay, our problem is we have a very small structure trying to keep an eye on
endangered precious yet cheap entries lists by machines with no real
support. I have 2000 DNs renewing at any date and I want for ever because
they are real sites in operations. The $.50 would warranty you and me. You
would just send me a monthly report with the status of every DNs with an
ASCII copy I can feed into my programs, the money amount to transfer and a
printed reminder (for my customers and banker) that keeping these domain
names renewed is your responsbility and that your are inslured by the
LLoyds or any oher international respected Insurrance company. Please
consider you curstomers, not only the cybersquatters.
My two eurocents.
On 20:42 05/02/02, Paul Stahura said:
>There are multiple reasons we state in our contract that
>we charge $20 per name to "re-activate" an expired domain,
>but the main reason is:
>Even though eNom is one of the largest net gaining registrars
>(in terms of number of domains) in recent months, we delete about
>1,000 names per day. This costs us $6x1000x45days=$270K per month
>in cash that is tied up for the period. If we were not compensated
>for that, then registrants would have no chance to renew
>an expired name because we would delete them about 2 days
>after expiration, and they would then have to go to the guy
>who re-registered their deleted name and pay that guy, or re-register
>themselves it if it was still in the pool. About 100 names "re-activated"
>per month at $20 each pays for this carrying cost. And
>we probably do not "re-activate" that many names each month, so we are
>actually losing money on it, so we could either raise the price or
>cancel the program and delete all names on day 1 after expiration.
>We choose to charge for it. Tucows, who I understand, does not
>charge for this service probably makes up for the cost of performing
>the service by charging their registrants in other ways, possibly by
>charging more for the actual registration.
>We choose to charge a fee to those who
>do not renew before deletion and not penalize those who do
>renew their names on-time.
>Also, It provides an incentive for registrants to renew their names
>on-time, before they expire.
>We make exceptions in charging this "re-activate" fee in special cases too.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
> > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:33 PM
> > To: 'Don Brown'
> > Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: RE: Re: [ga] charging for renewals after expiry
> > > What's the beef? My statements were on the side of the consumer.
> > The beef is that everybody sits on these lists, regardless of their
> > position, and spouts out the same excuses not to do anything. The
> > Registry is separate, "market forces" will fix the problem, there is a
> > committee looking at that, ICANN doesn't look at that issue ....
> > and now they say they searched the world and could only find
> > Crispin as
> > the ICANN technical manager. Is anyone going to seriously
> > argue that is
> > nothing more than a payoff for repeating all the excuses
> > above over and
> > over and over until people actually think they are legitimate excuses?
> > Russ Smith
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> > Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
>Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html