DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [registrars] auto deact -vs- auto renew

Very good points. I agree. 

Larry Erlich

Jim Archer wrote:
> Hello Rick and All...
> --On Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:22 AM -0800 Rick Wesson
> <wessorh@ar.com> wrote:
> >   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
> our system.
> 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
> auto-delete.
> > 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.
> Jim

Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>