ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [registrars] Motion for a Vote on Grace Period Deletion Fee

  • To: "Jay Westerdal" <jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion for a Vote on Grace Period Deletion Fee
  • From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 21:04:58 -0400
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcVoc9aMVFFVn4oCS/mB02U6aM9/8AADfs3wAADoh6AAAixpgAAEezuA
  • Thread-topic: [registrars] Motion for a Vote on Grace Period Deletion Fee

>From my perspective, it is equitable that all registrars pay ICANN's 25
cent Transaction Fee for the names that they register as part of a
business model, including those names deleted within the add grace
period.  Why should registrars utilizing a business model that registers
names for one purpose support ICANN to the tune of 25 cents per name,
while registrars utilizing a different business model don't have to pay
at all for the same registration?  If ICANN starts assessing this fee on
all such names, we may see the Transaction Fee reduced from 25 cents
much sooner than Kurt mentioned on the budget call yesterday.  With that
said, I agree with Jay and others that a registrar should not have to
pay for names registered by mistake or not registered as part of a
business transaction (i.e. testing).  Therefore, for ease of billing, I
support a safe harbor mechanism where ICANN collects the 25 cent
Transaction Fee from each registrar for all names deleted during the add
grace period that exceed 1% of the total names that registrar has
registered during that quarter.  This change easily could be
accomplished as part of the ongoing ICANN budget process and the billing
wouldn't be overly complex.  Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jay Westerdal
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 7:15 PM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion for a Vote on Grace Period Deletion Fee

I did some math calculations to see how many domains could be registered
for free in that five day window. Infinity x $0.00 = $0.00. That is

I am not trying to take away the rights of Registrars, I am trying to
close a loop-hole. The intended use of the 5 day grace was to allow
for production testing and for registrants to delete typos. I am
trying to move more toward the spirit of the clause as it was originally
designed. I can see the progression of this activity towards one where
the more creative registrars buys or starts a Bank so they can issue
their own letter of credit to Verisign for 6 Billion dollars. Then the
next day we have 1 Billion more .com domains and every four days after
that we see them cycling. Then the next registrar gets more creative and
issues themselves a 600 Billion Dollar letter of credit and then we
escalate to 100 Billion domains every four days. Oh, I wish the language
was more clear in the being, but I recognize the spirit of the contract
and I am simply trying to get us to the point of no free domains. I
would be fine if Verisign wanted to sell domains on a shorter window.
But the operative word is sell. I am all for 30 day $0.50 domains or
whatever they want to try. Heck even $0.01 for a day registration so
as there is money involved.

The ratio model is the only model that scales, large registrars have
more typos. It is really simple.

Jay Westerdal
Name Intelligence, Inc.

PS: It only takes about 25 Million in the US Funds and about 6 months of
paperwork to start your own bank in the US.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rob Hall
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 3:10 PM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion for a Vote on Grace Period Deletion Fee


I am concerned that you are attempting to take away a right that
currently have because it does not suit your Registrars business model. 

Registrars have many different business models, and the market should
what ones work, and what ones do not. That is what competition is about.
attempt such as yours to decide which ones should or should not be
might be seen as anti-competitive or anti-trust.  As a constituency, we
been warned in the past we must be careful when discussing or voting in
large groups to the detriment of other member Registrars, especially
it involves our costs or artificially raising the prices of goods in
collusion as a group.

Your suggestion also treats registrars differently, giving the large
registrars a leg up over smaller ones.

You are, in effect, also suggesting changing all of our contracts with
Registry, something that I for one do not take lightly.

It also would seem from earlier comments by others, that there is not
consensus on this.  I think a comment from Champ implied that the add
period was bad, because it allowed someone to have a domain for a period
time without paying for it.  One might also argue that the 45 day grace
period after expiration does exactly the same thing.  Registrants and
Registrars have the use of the domain for 45 days, and can then cancel
without paying for those 45 days (a period over 9 times longer than the
grace period).  Are you also suggesting that we get rid of this 45 day
period ?  Or apply a fee for using the domain during it as well ?
Perhaps a
domain should automatically go into the RGP period the day after expiry.
would think that many small Registrars might see what is happening with
Registrars using the 45 day period to measure traffic, and then sell the
domains to only their clients as an abuse of that grace period, even
than registering a domain and deleting it in the initial add period.
might think that the argument about taking a domain out of circulation
that other registrars can not register it would be far worse during the
day period, than the initial 5 day one.

It has also been suggested that it would solve the "contention" issue,
frankly, this is a red herring.  Verisign has stated publicly that they
able to handle the batch pool loads just fine.  Additionally, as someone
pointed out earlier, these adds have nothing to do with the batch pool,
loads on the registry.  There is no pounding of the Registry occurring
I would bet that there are not even any duplicate commands being sent,
as is
what happens during the deletion drop.  The Registry processes tens of
millions of requests a day.  I would think they would be happy to
process as
many add commands as you could give them.  I agree with Ross, that there
already market forces in play that limit someone just adding tens of
millions of names a day.

Personally, I do not condone a Registrar adding a domain, deleting it,
then adding the same one, then deleting it, then adding the same one,
effectively having the domain for free forever.  But there are easier
to deal with this type of activity.  For example, one could limit how
times the SAME domain could be add-deleted at a given registrar. I also
suspect that the activity of keeping a domain for free forever is not
is really occurring here.  

Alternately, you could allow domains to be registered by the month.  So
for 1/12th of the registration cost (ie: 50 cents), a domain could be
registered for one month. I believe Verisign already allows a domain to
extended for a month at this price, so why not allow it to be registered
a month initially at that price.  But if we are to start down this path,
needs careful discussion and planning, not a quick snap motion.

I recall in Argentina that Chuck Gomes pointed out that a high number of
domains had been registered, and that a high percentage of names had
deleted.  However, when you look at the domains that were kept, it was
over a million dollars worth of business to the Registry.  Are you sure
you want to be taking this money away from the Registry ?  Is it our
as Registrars to do this ?

Currently, my contract with the Registry allows me to offer a five day
period to my customers, so that if they decide they don't want a domain
have already paid for, they can delete it.  For you to suggest taking
that right, because you don't want me to offer it to my clients as a
added service, is simply wrong.

I suggest you tread very carefully here, and you may want to re-consider
your motion.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jay Westerdal
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 5:29 PM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] Motion for a Vote on Grace Period Deletion Fee

I official propose a mandatory deletion fee at the Registry.
The fee would go directly to the Registry.

Registrars must pay a $0.25 fee on every delete that takes place in the
day Grace Period that exceeds 200 per month or 1% of the registration
from the previous month whichever is greater.

I need 4 more registrars to support the motion to bring this to a vote.

Jay Westerdal
Name Intelligence, Inc.

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