RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think you are confusing billing and registration.

The registration period must be a minimum of one year in the current Registry 
Systems.

How a Registrar charges for that is up to them (and indeed it appears some do 
it monthly)?

In the new gTLD world there may well be Registries that accept monthly 
registrations depending on their business models. They would need to determine 
appropriate policy and have it ratified with ICANN one would presume.

Thanks


Adrian Kinderis


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2010 10:59 AM
To: Tim Ruiz; Gomes,Chuck
Cc: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; GNSO Council 
Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request


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 ‘second’.  In sum, we request that
>the Council ask ICANN Staff to ‘slow down’ the process of approving
>Versign’s latest RSEP proposal and accept community input on it.
>Thanks.
>
>
>Whereas, Verisign has recently made a proposal for an additional
>registry service called “domain exchange” 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
>“domain tasting” 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