RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Adrian, upon a bit of research, I cannot find 
anywhere in the existing registry agreements that 
set the minimum limit of 1 year. The Functional 
Specifications use the expression "for terms of up to ten years".
As Tim mentioned, it seems that the current EPP 
implementations use a unit of "years", but the 
RFCs allow for "months" as well. Perhaps there is 
a requirement to use "years" buried somewhere, 
but I couldn't find it. The closest I could come 
to it is that the Maximum Price to a registrar is quoted as an annual amount.
Alan

At 12/04/2010 09:36 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
> 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 â�?secondâ??.  In sum, we request that
> >the Counciuncil ask ICANN Staff to â??slow 
> downâ?? the processrocess of approving
> >Versignâ??s latest RSEP proposal andand accept community input on it.
> >Thanks.
> >
> >
> >Whereas, Verisign has recently made a proposal for an additional
> >registry service called â??domain exchangeâ?� f� 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??Å?domain tastingâ?Â? activities which 
> have been curbed bby 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