[registrars] Motion for a Vote on Grace Period Deletion

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>All,</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>There have been a number of compelling arguments shared on this
thread both pro and con regarding the current uses of the AGP. John B.
and Rob have made some points that have certainly made me rethink some
of this.&nbsp;I think it&nbsp;boils down to two issues:</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>1. AGP rules need to change to prevent the ability to use a domain
name without ever paying anything for it. It sounds like most agree
with this. The solution will have to be worked out in cooperation with
the registries. But if ICANN adopted what I propose below this may
become a non-issue.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>2. There should be some fee related at least to&nbsp;*trial*
registrations of a duration less than 5 days. There is obviouly no
agreement on this but I still think it needs to be considered.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>I have no problem with the AGP being used as a trial registration
period. That should be up to the registrar. It just should not be free
(to the registrar). Personally, I&nbsp;prefer&nbsp;the&nbsp;idea
that&nbsp;the fee associated with these registrations&nbsp;go to ICANN
in the form of the transactional fee as designated in the budget and
that this fee be non-refundable in *all circumstances including errors
and testing.*&nbsp;As has been pointed out on this thread,
and&nbsp;claimed by the registries in Argentina, there is already some
benefit to the registries by allowing *trial* type registrations: it
doesn't have any ill affect on their systems and results in some
real&nbsp;registrations.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Why charge the transactional fee in all circumstances?</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Errors - We're talking about a quarter US.&nbsp;A registrar
may&nbsp;choose to eat it when a registrant claims an error occurs, or
charge some nominal fee for the service. I suppose that would depend on
what they charge for registrations, the registrant they are dealing
with, etc.. This is such a very small percentage of any registrars'
registrations that&nbsp;it is almost a non-issue as far as I am
concerned. If it amounts to any significant problem for a registrar of
any size they need to be looking at what the problem is.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Testing - This is easily solvable. While the transaction fee would
apply if a registrar chose to test on their own, it could be avoided by
the registries setting aside a portion of non-sensical names that are
used&nbsp;strictly for production testing. As long as these *special*
names are deleted within the AGP there would be no transactional
fee.&nbsp;We're all smart enough to come up any number of other ideas
to allow for production testing. But any fees associated with testing
that registrars do with *real* names and the&nbsp;AGP&nbsp;on their own
is a cost of doing business and their decision.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Trials - The bottom line is that names registrered that are using the
AGP as a&nbsp;trial period are *in use* for a 4-5 day period. If the
registries want to leave this as a free trial to the registrar that's
fine with me.&nbsp;But the ICANN&nbsp;transactional fee should apply
the same as if they registered it for a month, two months, whatever and
then deleted it.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>A couple of final comments regarding&nbsp;some of
the&nbsp;comparisons of the current&nbsp;AGP practices to
current&nbsp;practices regarding the Renewal Grace Period or drop
catching:</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Keep in mind that the Renewal Grace Period applies to domain names
that&nbsp;are paid-for&nbsp;registrations and have been in use to some
extent for at least 12 months. The *trial* type registrations taking
advantage of the AGP&nbsp;pay nothing to use the name for a 4-5 day
period.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>There have been&nbsp;so many proposals forwarded to solve the
problems (real or imagined) with drop catching that it's impossible to
even to recall them all. They have been debated, shot down,
resurrected, shot down again, and on and on. There is a current
proposal on the table that registrars seem to support for the most
part, and that ICANN is currently considering. The only proposals ever
seriously considered by VeriSign involved eliminating the batch pool
and the *abuse* of their systems that involved pounded the heck out of
it. It's interesting to me that now they say there doesn't appear to be
any problem with the current AGP practice, or the potential growth in
volume if we all start getting involved. But my point is that some of
us saw drop catching as a problem and some of us didn't, it involves
various business models and revenue streams, yet we've been working
together to address it.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>I see no reason to drop this discussion and attempts to find a
workable resolution. </div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Tim</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>