RE: [ga] ...a palpable hit

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sotiris and Roberto,

Just wanted to clear up a misconception regarding the Redemption Grace
Period. The fees charged are not entirely set by Registrars. The gTLD
registries currently charge the Registrars, as approved by ICANN, $40
for a Redemption and that does not include the renewal fee.

All of the Registries have automated processes for Registrars as far as
submitting and approving the Redemption request. However, Registrars
have the added expense of dealing with the consumer directly in order
to facilitate the Redemption. That is not an automated process and
requires one or more person-to-person communications with the
registrant, by phone, email, webform exchange, etc..

Not arguing that the size of the high fee charged by every Registrar is
justified in every case, just adding some perspective to where the fee
came from in the first place.


Regards,

Tim

 


 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [ga] ...a palpable hit
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, August 12, 2006 5:12 pm
To: sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sotiris,

Just quick answers below.

>
>Not to mention the fact that oftentimes such 'tasting' amounts to
>'squatting', which makes the entire practice quite hypocritical and calls
>into question the entire UDRP.  On one hand, registries/registrars are
>bound to enforce intellectual property rights in domain names by locking
>up so-called 'disputed' domains, while on the other, they are actively
>seeking to hoard traffic generating domain names that have expired under
>their interagency... it's actually quite despicable, wouldn't you agree?

(I have no idea on what "despicable" means - I just assume you mean it 
stinks)
Indeed. However, with my ALAC hat on, I wanted to analyse the situation 
simply on the effect it has on the registrants and general public.

>
> > And yes, I agree with Karl, the actual raw cost for the registry is
> > substantially lower than the cost charged to registrars.
>
>What, if anything, do you recommend ought to be done about it?

Quite simply, I don't know. That's, in essence, why I haven't done
anything 
except arguing against raising (or lifting) the price cap.
:<(
But shouldn't this be seen mainly as a registry-registrar matter? I
mean, 
shouldn't the registrars be the active part of the community looking at
a 
different arrangement, maybe asking for registrants support on the
proposal?


>
>Roberto, I am curious, how many members of the "public" were present at
>the debate in Marrakesh (and I don't mean the ICANN 'insiders' and
>lobbyists... I mean actual members of the public at large)?

Don't know exactly, I can tell you that most of ALAC was there, but from
the 
podium I could not tell the difference between an internet user and an
IP 
lawyer ;>)
However, the session was transcribed. It was also planned to webcast it,
but 
I think it was one of those that was cancelled due to the well-known 
technical problems.

>
>As far as I can recall, the primary reasoning for the grace period was to
>allow registrants a 'second chance' if they happened to allow their
>name(s) to expire for some reason or another.  From there we went on to
>Redemption periods and as much as $80 charges to 'redeem' one's own domain
>if you happened to allow it to expire... In short, it seemd the old adage
>'give an inch and they'll take a yard' is an understatement when it comes
>to the registrar community's abuse of the grace/redemption periods.
>Domain 'tasting' proves that there really is little/no cost to the
>registrar for 'redeeming' a registrant's expired domain, so how do they
>justify for example an $80 'redemption' fee?  Do you not agree that this
>is a flagrant abuse of registrants?


Yes.
However, this exploits a window of opportunity that is open only because
the 
registrant has forgotten to renew the name.
My registrar is very good at reminding me to renew. Again, from a
"consumer 
protection" point of view, there are many differnt things that could be 
done.


>
>Sigh. Roberto, you know very well that we (i.e. the original At Large
>Membership and the public in general) have never really been listened to
>by the Board... I have been a member of the ICANN community since its
>inception, my name is on the list of registered attendees for the first
>ICANN meeting in Boston in '98:
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/cambridge-1198/attendees.html  I
>chaired the WG-Review after Greg Burton's rascally submission and
>subsequent disappearing act.  I was at ICANN Montreal in 2003 (where I had
>the pleasure of making your acquaintance).  In all that time, I cannot
>remember an instance when WE, the true At Large, have ever been listend
>to.
>


But we have not given up.


Cheers,
Roberto