Re: [registrars] Verisign registry requirements for credit during 45 day grace period after domain name expiry

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

Bruce - have there been any further developments on this issue? Verisign is
pillaging the registrars from an opportunity cost perspective - there need
be a significant re-examination of the way that our registry suppliers
choose to deal with us.

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
To: <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 1:39 AM
Subject: [registrars] Verisign registry requirements for credit during 45
day grace period after domain name expiry


> Hello All,
>
> At present the Verisign registry requires a credit balance to be
maintained
> by registrars.
>
> After a domain name passes the expiry date, the registry "auto-renews" the
> name, and charges against the funds maintained by the registrar.
>
> There is then a 45 day grace period, during which the domain name may be
> deleted, and the registry fee refunded.
>
> Given that probably only around 50% of domain names are renewed, there is
a
> need for a registrar to maintain a higher credit balance than necessary
> (unless the registrar chooses to not take advantage of the 45 day grace
> period, and explicitly delete the domain on the day of expiry).
>
> Melbourne IT feels that either:
> (1) Verisign should not debit the account balance until the end of the 45
> day grace period
> (2) Verisign should only debit the registrar at the beginning of the 45
day
> grace period for an amount that reflects the average renewal rate of that
> particular registrar (e.g if the registrar on average renews 10% of
domains
> by the end of the 45 day period, then the registry could debit the
> registrars account by that number of domains at the beginning of the 45
day
> period).
>
> What do other registrars think?
>
> We have found that as our total number of domains under management has
> grown, the requirement for a large credit balance is increased (and hence
> the opportunity cost of providing those funds that could be used
effectively
> elsewhere).
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin