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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Thanks for the feedback JP. I am understanding the issues better all the
time.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: JP [mailto:jp@dotregistrar.com]
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 11:41 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] Auto-Renew v. Auto-Delete


Chuck,

It is not only a matter of chargebacks, fraud, or change of mind by the
customers,It is a service not being rendered and and so it goes to the very
reason some registrars might consider "shortening multiyear registrations".
It is clear that the only way registrars can protect themselves against this
at this time is by accepting the multiyear registration but then renewing
one year at a time, we have not done so in the past, but since it is being
done and considered valid business model we might have to look at this as an
option.

JP


> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:00:39 -0400
> To: "'JP'" <jp@dotregistrar.com>, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>,
> registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Auto-Renew v. Auto-Delete
> 
> JP,
> 
> I apparently misunderstood your question.  You are apparently talking
about
> chargebacks. It seems to me that it would be unamanageble for registries
to
> get involved with chargebacks experienced by registrars.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JP [mailto:jp@dotregistrar.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 10:30 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Auto-Renew v. Auto-Delete
> 
> 
> 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
>>> 
>>>