RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Like Alan, I cannot find any direct requirement for a minimum registration 
period of one year but I will check with our legal team. 

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 10:59 PM
> To: Alan Greenberg; Tim Ruiz; Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; GNSO Council 
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request
> 
> Chuck?
> 
> 
> Adrian Kinderis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2010 12:20 PM
> To: Adrian Kinderis; Tim Ruiz; Gomes,Chuck
> Cc: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request
> 
> 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 ‘second’.  In sum, 
> we request that
> > >the Counciuncil ask ICANN Staff to ‘slow 
> > down̢۪ the processrocess of approving
> > >Versign̢۪s latest RSEP proposal andand accept community 
> input on it.
> > >Thanks.
> > >
> > >
> > >Whereas, Verisign has recently made a proposal for an additional
> > >registry service called “domain exchangeâ€Â 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
> > >“œdomain 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
> 
>