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

[JP <jp@dotregistrar.com>]

Chuck,

Actually not Just the unused part, as it is the case with most of the
registrars, the cardholder gets all his money back when he asks for it.

I believe in here we were just talking the length of the registration minus
one year.

JP



> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 09:53:40 -0400
> To: "'JP'" <jp@dotregistrar.com>, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>,
> "'Michael D. Palage'" <michael@palage.com>, registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Auto-Renew v. Auto-Delete
> 
> JP,
> 
> To my knowledge we have never talked about unused portion of deleted
> multiyear registrations. Does I-Holdings credit registrants for such unused
> portions?
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JP [mailto:jp@dotregistrar.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:27 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Auto-Renew v. Auto-Delete
> 
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> I am glad to hear that you are considering it; what about the interest of
> most of the registrars as to have the ability to recoup on the unused
> portion of deleted multiyear registrations?
> 
> JP
> 
>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
>> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 08:47:05 -0400
>> To: "'Michael D. Palage'" <michael@palage.com>, tim@godaddy.com,
>> registrars@dnso.org
>> Cc: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
>> Subject: RE: [registrars] Auto-Renew v. Auto-Delete
>> 
> 
>> 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
>> 
>>