Re: [registrars] auto deact -vs- auto renew
Hello Rick and All...
--On Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:22 AM -0800 Rick Wesson
> o VGRS deactivates the name if not explicitly renewed or transfered by
> day 10 of the renewal grace period.
We don't like this idea at all. We, as well as many other registrars,
offer a grace period for renewal to our customers. During this grace
period, we point the domain to our name servers and put up a web page
saying the name is expired. This is designed to get the registrant's
attention. If the registry goes and deactivates the name that will mess up
One might argue that too many names are lost because registrants don't know
the name is expired, because it keeps working during the grace period.
What the registrar does to the name during the grace period is a matter of
what services they wish to offer their customer. We don't need the
registry dictating what happens because it will curtail each registrar's
ability to distinguish their services from other registrars. These days
where our ability to distinguish ourselves is eroding weekly. This only
furthers that loss.
> o VGRS deletes the names not explicity renewed or transfered by the end
> of the renewal grace period.
I don't like this. If there is an unforeseen bug in our systems, then I
would rather that the name be renewed for $6 than deleted, forcing us to
deal with a very manual and time consuming restore process.
On the last conference call it was argued that registrars should simply
have solid systems. This in nonsense. I doubt there is a registrar in
business who has not had a software bug or other system failure at some
time. Bugs happen. Auto renew is a much safer environment than
> Please comment on this proposal and add any recommendations you may have.
> VGRS might me able to make the changes in their June/July software
> release. If we can get a paper and respective consensus to VGRS in 30
> days it would help the understand if they can make the suggested changes
> in their summer release schedule.
I certainly would not want to see a change like this rushed in to place
without much more thought. Our system is heavily based upon this
auto-renew behavior. We have had enough of an engineering crunch with all
the new registries coming on line and the PIR changeover. The last thing
we need is another engineering rush job.
I don't hear a lot of complaints that people don't like the technical
aspect of auto-renew. I do hear a lot of complaints about the financial
implications of charging us $6.00 per name then refunding the money if we
delete the name.
There are two separate issues here, a financial one and a technical one.
The technical issue is really a non-issue. Its the money that talks.
There is no reason auto renew has to become auto delete to resolve the
financial issue. No engineering changes need be made to resolve the
financial issue. Don't be in too much of a hurry to be distracted by
engineering discussions when the real issue is a financial one.