ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [registrars] Deletes task force

  • To: "'ross@xxxxxxxxxx'" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>, Rob Hall <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] Deletes task force
  • From: Paul Stahura <stahura@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:25:53 -0800
  • Cc: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I agree with Ross, we can overcome any problem we may have with "explicit
renew" with technology.
No matter how hard we try, we can't use technology to get our funds 
(besides just deleting names upon expiration).
Even with a letter of credit (ie no actual cash at verisign), those funds
are locked up, unusable for us.
I believe the benefit of having the use of the funds 
outweighs the cost of having to deal with explicit renewal.
So if we have to switch from auto-renew to explicit renew
just so that the registries do not have our funds during
the "grace" period, then I'm in favor of that.

Of course if we can keep auto-renew and not have the funds debited 
until the end of the grace period, I'm even in more favor of that.

If we had the funds, we could use them to increase registrations, benefiting

registrars and registries alike.
Without the funds, we have more pressure to delete upon expiration,
in which case both the registries and registrars loose, as less names
are likely to be renewed that way.  
And with a LOC, I don't even think verisign has use of the funds anyway.

Since Verisign is the company that retains the most of our funds, (because 
the total of .net and .com names expiring is large), can I 
ask Chuck (I think he monitors this list), why not?
Is it something contractual, such as we must pay $6 on renewal or
registration
no matter what, even if the renewal is an auto-renew during the grace
period?

If so, then can we either change the contract or switch to explicit renewal?

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 7:00 PM
To: Rob Hall
Cc: Registrars Constituency
Subject: Re: [registrars] Deletes task force


On 12/1/2003 4:39 PM Rob Hall noted that:

> While I agree with the decoupling of the billing issue, I still stand by
> that we prefer an explicit renew to this auto-renew stuff we see now.

We're not as firm on the auto/explicit renew issue - we can automate 
against explicit  renew as easily as we do with auto-renew. On the other 
hand, I can't spend my cash if its in someone else's bank account for 45 
days.

-- 

                        -rwr








                 "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
                                            All life is an experiment.
                             The more experiments you make the better."
                         - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>