Re: [registrars] Deletes task force

[Larry Erlich <erlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> 
> On 12/1/2003 10:36 PM Tim Ruiz noted that:
> 
> > if the registries would just agree
> > to charge at the end of the grace period, keeping auto-renew in place,
> > wouldn't we still have the best of both worlds?
> 
> I think we would. At this point I propose the following;
> 
> This doesn't strike me as being an ICANN or constituency issue. As such,
> we should probably move the discussion elsewhere. I am in the process of
> drafting a letter to the registries that outlines our concerns and will
> solicit additional registrar signatories throughout this week. This
> letter will include an invitation to the registry operators that engage
> in this practice to participate in a teleconference at a to be announced
> time.
> 
> I think it is in our best interests to look at this as a
> customer/supplier issue and also be keenly cautious of the legal issues
> that may surround an action of this nature. I am specifically not
> suggesting that we form any sort of collective bargaining group or
> attempt to coerce the registries through some sort of organized boycott
> into adopting our viewpoint.

I assume that Tucows is not in a position to stop
selling .com names so I don't know how that would ever
work even if you could do that. 

> I am simply proposing that we gather in the
>   same room, allow them to hear our mutual concerns and specifically
> request that they return to us with a proposal that will provide my
> company, and presumably others, with more comfortable operating
> arrangements.

They earn money off the money right now, so an argument
that would stand a chance of working might be one that
shows that they will make more money by providing flexible
payment terms. This might actually be the only argument that would work.

For example Bhavin says that he must
delete 15 days past the expiration, rather than 45 days past
the expiration. If he had more flexible payment terms, and
didn't have to delete in 15 days, he would probably get renewals that
he doesn't get now and in the long run the registry
would make more money. I'm sure there are other examples
that registrars can come up with,
but these are the ones you should be concentrating on; the
ones that translate into more money in the long run for
the registries. 

It is no secret that the extension of credit
translates into higher purchasing even though it carries
the risk of bad debt. (The old Internic/NSI used to
register names for $35 (and previously higher) and send out postal invoices
many of which were not paid and they still made
plenty of money. They never even checked credit or verified
the validity of the registrations.  (I think once someone even did
17,000 combinations of 4 letter names to a bogus address.)

Larry Erlich

http://www.DomainRegistry.com

> 
> This is just off the top of my head and I'd be happy to modify the
> concept with input from others. I will forward a draft later tomorrow
> for review.
> 
> --
> Regards,
> 
>         -rwr
> 
> "In the modern world the intelligence of public opinion is the one
> indispensable condition for social progress."
>         - Charles W. Eliot (1834 - 1926)