RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

My mistake. I assumed that since the minimum 
extension on a transfer was one year, the minimum 
initial registration was also.
Tim, does that mean that a gTLD registry could 
unilaterally decide to support EPP with a unit of 
months (subject to the 10 year max) and therefore 
start accepting monthly registrations?
Alan

At 12/04/2010 06:42 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> Registry EPP implementations only support registrations in increments of
> one year. A registrar can offer a monthly plan (and many do), but they
> have to pay a year up front to the registry. But we're both
> contractually bound to registering names for a maximum of 10 years.
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, April 12, 2010 4:21 pm
> To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>,
> <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council " <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Alan,
>
> I do not believe that there is any policy or requirement that registrars
> offer registration periods of one year.  And it should be noted that not
> registrars require one-year registrations.
>
> Chuck
>
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 4:51 PM
> To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'GNSO Council '
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request
>
>
>
> Mike, one of the other things that the registry service would do is
> effectively introduce the concept of reducing the effective minimum
> registration period from one year to one month, without the benefit of
> any ICANN policy discussion. That may be worth mentioning in the motion.
>
> Alan
>
> At 12/04/2010 02:28 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
> The BC makes the following motion for Council consideration in our next
> meeting, and would appreciate a â??secondâ??.  In sum, we request that
> the Council ask ICANN Staff to â??slow downâ?? the process of approving
> Versignâ??s latest RSEP proposal and accept community input on it.
> Thanks.
>
>
> Whereas, Verisign has recently made a proposal for an additional
> registry service called â??domain exchangeâ?? for the .net TLD.
> http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf
>
>
> Whereas, it appears the proposal may permit resumption of abusive
> â??domain tastingâ?? activities which have been curbed by the AGP Limits
> policy, and therefore appropriate limitations on the proposed registry
> service must be considered.
>
> RESOLVED:
>
> The Council requests that Staff make the preliminary determination that
> this RSEP proposal requires further study and public comment, because it
> could raise significant issues with security and stability and/or
> competition.
>
>
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com