RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

As far as I am aware it is a technical limitation of the current EPP
implementations. So I believe if a registry wanted to offer one month
registration increments they could. They may choose to go through the
Registry Services Evaluation Process, but I'm not sure that it would be
required.

Tim 
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, April 12, 2010 11:26 pm
To: "Adrian Kinderis" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Alan
Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, "Tim Ruiz"
<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council " <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


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
> 
>