ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


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

RE: [registrars] Issue with icann budget model

  • To: "Registrars Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] Issue with icann budget model
  • From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:53:20 +1000
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcSwl5jeCKDOpjF6QU2m+UbaM13iRgAHu0iQ
  • Thread-topic: [registrars] Issue with icann budget model

Hello Bhavin,

> 
> One of the issues I had discussing with Kurt about the new 
> budget is an issue in the new proposed model
> 
> In the new model a 25 cents transaction fee for every transaction.
> 
> However this brings up two issues
> 
> * what happens to domains deleted in the add grace / renewal 
> grace / transfer grace period. All those transactions MUST 
> not count. Icann has yet to issue clarity on that
> 
> * what happens to domains in auto-renew period. The renew 
> transaction charge CANNOT be applied to a registrar unless 
> the auto-renew period is over and the domain is still with 
> the registrar. Or else there will be issues like the domain 
> will get transferred away to another registrar and the older 
> one will have to bear an unnecessary charge. Also if the 
> domain is deleted within auto-renew the charge would not apply
> 
> It is important for us to ensure that ICANN and the 
> registries are clear about the charging model in their 
> calculations so as to prevent issues where registrars get 
> charged for domains that are not eventually renewed or are deleted
> 

Thanks for spotting those issues.  I agree with you on both counts.

Regards,
Bruce



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