ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [registrars] Variations on the current domain name model - proposed registrar workshop for Luxembourg

  • To: "Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [registrars] Variations on the current domain name model - proposed registrar workshop for Luxembourg
  • From: "Ross Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 09:01:07 -0400
  • Cc: Jay Westerdal <jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, registrars@xxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <200505311254.j4VCsm3G023588@brian.voerde.globvill.de>
  • References: <200505311254.j4VCsm3G023588@brian.voerde.globvill.de>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The price will be what the price is - the only thing that will change price is a rebid. Performance guarantees are part of the contract. So, I still don't really see what our issue is or why we would possibly care about what arguments VGRS may or may not have...

But to add some further refinement to my statements - if the registries want to move forward with developing a set of rules or policies to manage or oversee the five day period more effectively, I'd be happy to participate in the process and support any rational conclusions that came out of that process...

But I still don't think that this is a burning, priority issue for the constituency. Let's worry about some more important things like our bylaws, website, transfers and whois....things that can actually help make things easier for us...(or worse if we don't get them done :)

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:54:48 +0200 (CEST)
 "Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


you may remember that VGRS frequently complained about their registry being hammered, thus they would have to increase the domain price? OK, the .net bid demonstrates that this was also for show, but why give them this argument? I do not see an impact for the "honest" registrars, and the less the registry has to deal with fraudulant access, the better the performance for everyone will be. Also, I do not think we have an interest in the registry building up resources that are mainly used by a few, in the end this will prevent price


I'm not seeing why this is our problem. A precious few are exploiting a loophole in the system and there is no real damage or loss to other registrars.

Why again do we care?

I know I argued the opposite in Argentina, but after talking more about this with Rob, I just simply don't see what the fuss is about.

If the registries want to do something about this, OTOH, I can easily understand why they would want to do something about it - but from my perspective, registrars have a lot on their plate already and taking on someone else's work just simply doesn't make a lot of sense to me...

On Tue, 31 May 2005 10:23:03 +0200 (CEST)
  "Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi, > > I second Jay's proposal. A quota on the abuse period can >solve this problem, > just like it could solve the "add commend" issue we >discussed in Capetown. > > Yours,
> Marcus
> > >> I would suggest that the solution is a fee to delete >>within 5 days. >> Something like 75 cents. For those that registering >>100,000 domains in a day >> it would curb their appetite from trying them out for >>free. And for those >> that made a true mistake it would allow them delete with >>a small processing >> fee. Since typos happen, it may be more prudent to allow >>registrars that >> successful keeps domains longer then 5 days to get a >>ratio of free deletes. >> >> I would suggest 1 free delete per 200 domains >>successfully and newly >> registered longer then 5 days. I would love to see some >>more discussion >> about this and then by Friday I would like to propose a >>formal motion along
>> these lines.
>> >> The abuse is huge. Over 750K domains were registered in >>one day the other >> week! Then almost all were deleted in the 5 day free >>abuse period. >> >> Jay Westerdal
>> Name Intelligence, Inc.
>> http://www.nameintelligence.com >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of >>Tim Ruiz
>> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 9:58 AM
>> To: Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [registrars] Variations on the current >>domain name model -
>> proposed registrar workshop for Luxembourg
>> >> Bruce, >> >> The add grace period abuse needs to be addressed >>separately. I see no >> benefit in dilluting that issue by labeling it a >>business model. >> >> This practice has broad and complicated implications >>that we would have
>> to resolve first, IP infringement for example.
>> >> I really think the AGP is a seperate discussion. >> >> Tim >> >> >> >> > -------- Original Message -------- >> > Subject: [registrars] Variations on the current domain >>name model -
>> > proposed registrar workshop for Luxembourg
>> > From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Date: Sun, May 29, 2005 9:44 pm
>> > To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
>> > >> > Hello All, >> > >> > The dominant model for domain names across >>com/net/org/biz/info etc, >> > consists of registering a domain name for a fixed fee >>for one year, up >> > to 10 years. There is no registry discount for >>multiple years. There >> > is a grace period of 5 days, where a name can be >>registered, and then >> > deleted for a refund. This is presently being used >>for domain name >> > buyers that want to attempt to measure the traffic >>associated with a >> > particular name, and then decide whether to keep. It >>is effectively >> > being treated as a 5 day free trial, rather than a >>grace period to
>> > account for registration mistakes.
>> > >> > I believe it is time that we saw some changes in the >>dominant model - >> > towards a choice of models that match the >>characteristics of different
>> > markets.
>> > >> > Here are some example markets: >> > (1) Corporates - they want to register a name for up >>to 10 years, and >> > tend to operate their own DNS and hosting >>infrastructure. The current
>> > model suits this market best.
>> > >> > (2) Web hosting companies - they want to bundle a >>domain name with >> > hosting. A model where a name can be registered for a >>30 day period,
>> > with auto-renewal might suit their business model.
>> > >> > (3) Domain name owners that monetise names via >>pay-per-click traffic. A >> > model where there is a longer "free trial" period may >>be of interest. >> > >> > I propose that we have a workshop at Luxembourg - >>similar to the >> > workshop that proposed different approaches to >>resolving contention for >> > deleted names - that invites ideas on different domain >>name models that >> > could be offered at the registry. These would be new >>registry services >> > and would need approval from ICANN, and would need to >>be available to
>> > all registrars.
>> > >> > Regards,
>> > Bruce Tonkin
>> >

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