RE: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> As in the case of the Redemption Grace Period (where a 
> registry has set an 
> initial $85 charge and then registrars proceed to gouge the 
> registrant to the 
> full extent of their greed), I fully expect to see registrars 
> continuing to 
> screw registrants in similar fashion via the transfers 
> dispute resolution 
> process.   

Danny - I'll let Jeff speak for himself, but as a Task Force member
perhaps I can unofficially shed some clarity on the subject...

The task force envisioned a process whereby a registrant would file a
dispute through a registrar. The registrar would then be able to
determine which party would be best suited to resolve the dispute - the
registry or a third party. There is no reason why the registrar has to
first go to the registry when filing a dispute. The two benefits to this
approach - first, it incents the registries to provide the service
competitively. There is nothing that forces me to pay anything to a
registry that has priced themselves out of the market. In fact, I can
shop the dispute around and pick the recognized third party resolver
that will give me the best price (which comes with some downsides as the
UDRP points out, but I'm not sure that forum shopping will get us much
here other than potentially, a price break.) Second, it ensures that a
non-biased party is hearing the dispute. If, for some reason, the
registry is potentially conflicted, the registry won't be put in a
position where it *must* hear a dispute and be conflicted.

Third parties have quoted roughly $1500 per dispute to sort these things
out - I am sure the registries could be persuaded to do this on a cost
recovery basis which would make them substantially cheaper than this...

Perhaps someone that actually runs a registry could answer this question
more specifically ;)

Lastly, it wasn't envisioned that this would be a chargable service for
registrars any more than processing UDRP complaints is - therefore your
concerns that Registrars would surcharge the community to death are not
likely to come into play. I understand why you feel this way, but I
don't see it really coming into play on this particular point...time
could prove me wrong however.

Regards,



                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf 
> Of DannyYounger@cs.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 12:33 PM
> To: Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: [ga] Contemplated Registry Fees
> 
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> Regarding the dispute resolution procedure contemplated in 
> the Transfers 
> Final Report -- If, as the language of the recommendation 
> indicates, a 
> dispute resolution may be administered by a "pertinent Registry", the 
> presumption is that the Registry is entitled to set a fee for 
> such services.  
> As in the case of the Redemption Grace Period (where a 
> registry has set an 
> initial $85 charge and then registrars proceed to gouge the 
> registrant to the 
> full extent of their greed), I fully expect to see registrars 
> continuing to 
> screw registrants in similar fashion via the transfers 
> dispute resolution 
> process.   
> 
> As the cost analysis in the Transfers report fails to address 
> this issue, 
> could you perhaps hazard a guess as to the amount of the fee 
> to be set by a 
> Registry for such services?  This will then help to determine 
> the level of 
> extortion we can ultimately expect from registrars in the 
> transfers dispute 
> process.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.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 ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html