[registrars] Lets explore some other options

["Thomas Barrett - EnCirca" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think it is way too premature to start drilling down on one particular
option.  Since this has become a free-wheeling discussion, I would like to
propose something that would benefit all registrars rather than penalize a
few registrars or a particular business model.
 
There may be a registry service here so that all registrars can offer these
services with full support of the registries.  One possibility is a daily
report from Verisign and other registries of failed DNS traffic to their
TLD, accompanied by numerical data of traffic volume.  Registrars could then
decide or not decide to market the data to their clients.

This would result in a much more efficient market than the one that exists
today and would allow all registrars to participate without an undue burden
on the registry.
 
Regards,
 
Tom Barrett
 
  _____  

From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 10:36 AM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] Motion for a Vote on Grace Period Deletion


All,
 
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. I think it
boils down to two issues:
 
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.
 
2. There should be some fee related at least to *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.
 
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 prefer the idea that the fee associated with these
registrations 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.* As has been pointed out on this thread, and
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 registrations.
 
Why charge the transactional fee in all circumstances?
 
Errors - We're talking about a quarter US. A registrar may 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 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.
 
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
strictly for production testing. As long as these *special* names are
deleted within the AGP there would be no transactional fee. 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 AGP on their own is a cost of doing business and their decision.
 
Trials - The bottom line is that names registrered that are using the AGP as
a 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. But the
ICANN transactional fee should apply the same as if they registered it for a
month, two months, whatever and then deleted it.
 
A couple of final comments regarding some of the comparisons of the current
AGP practices to current practices regarding the Renewal Grace Period or
drop catching:
 
Keep in mind that the Renewal Grace Period applies to domain names that are
paid-for registrations and have been in use to some extent for at least 12
months. The *trial* type registrations taking advantage of the AGP pay
nothing to use the name for a 4-5 day period.
 
There have been 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.
 
I see no reason to drop this discussion and attempts to find a workable
resolution. 
 
Tim