RE: [registrars] RE: RGP Implementation - .ORG

[Paul Stahura <stahura@xxxxxxxx>]

Registrars, Bruce asked me to post his message to the list, see below.

Bruce, thanks for your reply and for your consideration of my request.

I just have a few comments to your reply
1) It seems to me that if the goal was setting up the accounting 
"in an easy to understand fashion for our customers" then the best thing
would have been to keep it the same as before since that method 
was/is well understood by your customers (the registrars).

2) I'm a little surprised that your answer to my first question wasn't
simply
"Yes, PIR decided to go that way because that was the way Afilias had their
software already setup for .info and it would have cost PIR money to have
Afilias change it"
Thanks for clearing up that that was not the reason, though at least I would
have understood if it was.

3) You say that you replicated the RRP including the timing of 
the financial transactions, as best you could. 
Its was common knowledge what happens when a delete is made during the grace
period
for .org names when .org was at Verisign, and
since, in your answer to my first question, you say
"yes, PIR made that decision" then you obvioulsy knew enough to decide one
way or the other, then I can only assume that you did replicate that RRP
behavior too.
(Anyone still using RRP for .org can tell us for sure, and I know there
still are some)
So this means that if RRP is used, the credit is applied in real-time
(as that was the timing of the transactions at Verisign), and if
EPP is used, the credit is delayed 30 days.
In that case, some registrars are getting a credit 
(those that use RRP) and some are not (those that have switched to EPP).
And this has gone on for many months.
Since Afilias and PIR are so persnickety about registrar fairness, 
and especially persnickety when it comes to registrar's credit balance,
again, I'm surprised.

3) FYI I've confirmed with the .com, .net, .biz and .us registries that
they all either credit the registrar's account in real-time or at midnight
of the day of the transaction and in neither case wait 30 days.

I look forward to PIR (and Afilias) matching their competition on this
feature.

I would like to talk to you in Carthage, but unfortunately I will not be
attending.
Perhaps by phone, before or after?

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Beckwith [mailto:bbeckwith@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 3:12 PM
To: Paul Stahura
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: RGP Implementation - .ORG


Paul,

Thanks for the questions.

Yes, please post this response to the RC mailing list since the response
I sent to Elana's note did not get posted - I'm not an authorized poster
to the list, so my note is being held by the list software.

On your first question - yes, PIR made that decision.  The decision was
based on our best analysis of how to implement RGP in as automated a way
as we could, and to attempt to set up the accounting in an easy to
understand fashion for our customers.  As you have suggested, though we
may have achieved our goal in terms of process or presentation of the
financials, it does not meet your cash-flow goals.  We are now looking
at this, and will consider the changes in the procedure you've
suggested, as well as scope the changes that would be necessary with the
software.

On your second question - we made every attempt to replicate the RRP
process as we could determine that the prior registry operator had in
place.  This included the timing of the financial transactions.  Since
we did not have any visibility into the prior registry operator's
systems, much of the determination of the processes were based on
registrar feedback and testing.

Now to the question you did not ask, but I know that you've voiced in
other arenas - will PIR ever change the method for debiting accounts
upon autorenew?  We are looking at the technical impact of this change.
As you have pointed out, as a non-profit registry, we do not have some
of the external pressures that our contemporaries have.  Our decision
will be based on a review of our ICANN contractual requirements and the
implementation will be based on insuring that the software is
appropriately tested prior to release.

I would be pleased to discuss this and any other topics relating to the
.ORG TLD at the Registrar Constituency Meeting in Carthage.

As a reminder, I would encourage any registrar who has yet to complete
and send in the PIR Registrar survey to do so as soon as practical.
This will insure that we can incorporate your feedback in our processes,
policies, and systems.  If you would like an extra copy of the survey,
please let me know off-list.

Regards,

Bruce

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Stahura [mailto:stahura@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 4:57 PM
To: Bruce Beckwith
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: RGP Implementation - .ORG

Bruce,

I have two questions for PIR:

1) Did PIR make a policy decision to 
not refund our registration fee immediately upon deletion after an
auto-renew?
I assume PIR has made this decision because that is what Afilias, 
your outsourced registry systems provider, is doing on your behalf.

If you have not made that policy decision, please ask your
outsourced registry systems provider to refund our funds immmiately 
upon  delete.  If you have made that policy decision, I ask
you to reconsider it, see below.

2) Do/did registrars who are/had been using RRP for .org registrations 
have their funds credited upon deletion, like they did when
Verisign was the operator?

As you request, here is a detailing of the suggested change:

Immediately credit the registration fee (that was automatically deducted

from our accounts when a name is auto-renewed) when the name is deleted.

I will post your answers to the registrar's list, if you wish.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 1:20 PM
To: Bruce Beckwith
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] RE: RGP Implementation - .ORG


Bruce - will do.  Will you be in Carthage if registrars have an interest
in
following up in person, as well?

Elana Broitman
Register.com
575 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone (212) 798-9215
Fax   (212) 629-9309
ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx 


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Beckwith [mailto:bbeckwith@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 4:19 PM
To: Elana Broitman
Subject: RGP Implementation - .ORG


Elana,

As you know, at this time, registry operators are not allowed to join
the Registrar Constituency mailing list, so I ask for your assistance in
posting this message to the list as soon as you have the opportunity.

Thanks.

Regards,

Bruce


Dear Registrars,

On behalf of Public Interest Registry (PIR), I appreciate the
opportunity to clarify several misconceptions that have just been posted
to the Registrar Constituency mailing list.

Firstly, PIR is the registry operator that has been granted the contract
to operate the .ORG TLD by ICANN.  PIR has full responsibility and
authority over the .ORG TLD, as specified in the ICANN contracts.

Having stated this, it is apparently confusing to some as to what
Afilias' role is with .ORG.  PIR has chosen Afilias Global Registry
Services as the outsource registry systems provider for .ORG.  Afilias
has done an outstanding job to date, yet I would like to remind everyone
that PIR is the entity responsible for all management and policy
decisions regarding the .ORG TLD, therefore, you should address any
concerns and comments regarding the management of the .ORG TLD directly
to PIR.

As noted in the posting to the Registrar Constituency mailing list
(http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg00622.html)
there is some concern about the methods used to debit and credit
registrar accounts.

I invite you to review the Bucharest RGP implementation documents, found
at http://www.icann.org/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm.  The RGP
implementation for .ORG followed the guidance found in the ICANN
documents.  As you will note during the review of the documents, there
is no specificity about when a charge or debit must occur.  As you may
also know, each registry operator interpreted the Bucharest documents as
they felt would best serve their customers.  Unfortunately, due to the
tight time constraints built into the PIR/ICANN contracts, there was not
sufficient time for PIR to request substantive feedback from you, our
registrar customers, on the RGP implementation.  We have received some
very valuable feedback since our original release in June, and that was
to endeavor to automate the process so that you could increase customer
satisfaction to your customers.  That process has been announced and is
underway.

Please consider the following request:  PIR would be very interested in
comments regarding our processes and policies.  If you can detail
suggested changes, we are pleased to consider them.  It is our intent to
be a leader in registry services, and that is not possible without your
assistance and feedback.  To that end, I would also encourage you to
complete the registrar survey that was recently sent to you, and return
it to PIR so that we can incorporate your comments on a range of issues.
If you need an additional copy, please send me a note off-list.  

Be assured that PIR is ready and willing to make changes to our
processes and systems to better serve the community.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Bruce


Bruce W. Beckwith
VP, Operations
Public Interest Registry
1775 Wiehle Avenue
Suite 102A
Reston, VA  20190

v:  +1 703.464.7005 x105
f:  +1 703.783.8287

bbeckwith@xxxxxxx