RE: [registrars] Motion for a Vote on Grace Period Deletion Fee

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>John, you state that "ultimately, names *are* registered which would
not be registered otherwise." You have absolutely no evidence to
support that assumption. There is nothing to indicate that these names
would not have been registered&nbsp;otherwise.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Regarding your concern about whether anyone was really doing repeated
adds/deletes, the registry admitted that themselves at our meeting in
Argentina. They know it is going on and they certainly have the data to
tell.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Tim<BR><BR><BR></div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE:
[registrars] Motion for a Vote on Grace Period Deletion<BR>Fee<BR>From:
"John Berryhill" &lt;john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Sun, June 05,
2005 12:36 am<BR>To: "Nevett, Jonathon"
&lt;jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;, "Jay
Westerdal"<BR>&lt;jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;,
registrars@xxxxxxxx<BR><BR>&gt; The ICANN Transaction Fee<BR>&gt; is
paid to ICANN to support its hopefully worthwhile endeavors,<BR>&gt;
including ensuring registrar compliance with contractual
requirements.<BR><BR>e.g. the consensus deletes policy?<BR><BR>&gt; The
issue is whether registrars that register names under the<BR>&gt;
"traditional" registration business model should be financially<BR>&gt;
supporting registrars that register names under the "register
and<BR>&gt; delete" business model by essentially paying their share of
the ICANN<BR>&gt; fee. &nbsp;I think not.<BR><BR>Whether the
"traditional" business model constitutes primarily selling whois<BR>and
.com zone change information instead of registering domain names
is<BR>probably open to debate. &nbsp;However, it is clear that there is
still<BR>misunderstanding of the model. &nbsp;ICANN *is* collecting fees
on this activity,<BR>and fees that would not otherwise be collected.
&nbsp;It is the same reason that<BR>it is a net plus for the registry -
ultimately, names *are* registered which<BR>would not be registered
otherwise.<BR><BR>Going back to the 1000 names example, since it was
not clear enough... Let's<BR>say that out of a batch of 1000 names,
there are 10 names that the<BR>registrant finds would be worth $10 each
per year in revenue. &nbsp;Those 10<BR>names will be kept, ICANN will
collect $2.50 and Verisign will collect $60.<BR>If there was a 25 cent
fee, then those 10 names will not be registered<BR>(because the
exercise would cost $250 and net $100), and ICANN
collects<BR>nothing.<BR><BR>Now, if 5 of those names set off an alarm
in Jay's trademark monitoring<BR>system, he collects a fee for nailing
them down when they are dropped, ICANN<BR>gets another $1.25, and
Verisign gets &nbsp;another $30.<BR><BR>Maybe I'm dense, but $2.75 pays
more of a business class seat from LAX to<BR>Morocco than a system that
pays ICANN nothing.<BR><BR>&gt;If the economics are such that
the<BR>&gt; "register and delete" business model can't sustain the same
25 cent fee<BR>&gt; that all registrars have to pay when registering a
name, so be it --<BR>&gt; then ICANN wouldn't have to spend any of its
resources regulating that<BR>&gt; activity.<BR><BR>ICANN is not
spending any resources regulating that activity. &nbsp;ICANN
asked<BR>Verisign to drop in on the RC meeting in Mar Del Plata to
discuss the issue<BR>at the behest of registrars whose business model
apparently includes keeping<BR>an eye on other registrars.
&nbsp;Verisign is perfectly able to manage its<BR>relationships with
registrars, said it was not causing a problem, and ICANN<BR>does not
have a horse in this race.<BR><BR>There are doubtless many worthy
causes that could use a quarter every time a<BR>domain name is
registered, but do I understand correctly that between your<BR>25 cents
and Jay's 25 cents, we are up to 50 cents? &nbsp;Or are
these<BR>alternative proposals which share the common theme of "making
someone pay<BR>something to somebody" but we don't care to whom?
</BLOCKQUOTE>