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

[dwascheriar <dwascher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim and John,
I can substantiate part of this as being true. When several of our partners
were doing the "testing" of names they used various methods such as old zone
files and there own name dictionaries. After the deletes were done and our
partners kept the several thousand names that they wanted we saw several
hundred tested names that were left re-registered again by other registrars.
What we found was that the "Domain Pot" had been stirred and names that
people had forgotten or did not think to use were now available. We did have
people call us DURING the 24 hour testing because they monitored the zone
file and asked if they could buy that domain because they had not considered
it or did not know that it was available.

Thanks,
David Wascher
IARegistry

  -----Original Message-----
  From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
  Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 11:29 PM
  To: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Cc: NevettJonathon; Jay Westerdal; registrars@xxxxxxxx
  Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion for a Vote on Grace Period Deletion Fee


  John, you state that "ultimately, names *are* registered which would not
be registered otherwise." You have absolutely no evidence to support that
assumption. There is nothing to indicate that these names would not have
been registered otherwise.

  Regarding your concern about whether anyone was really doing repeated
adds/deletes, the registry admitted that themselves at our meeting in
Argentina. They know it is going on and they certainly have the data to
tell.

  Tim




    -------- Original Message --------
    Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion for a Vote on Grace Period Deletion
    Fee
    From: "John Berryhill" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    Date: Sun, June 05, 2005 12:36 am
    To: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Jay Westerdal"
    <jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, registrars@xxxxxxxx

    > The ICANN Transaction Fee
    > is paid to ICANN to support its hopefully worthwhile endeavors,
    > including ensuring registrar compliance with contractual requirements.

    e.g. the consensus deletes policy?

    > The issue is whether registrars that register names under the
    > "traditional" registration business model should be financially
    > supporting registrars that register names under the "register and
    > delete" business model by essentially paying their share of the ICANN
    > fee.  I think not.

    Whether the "traditional" business model constitutes primarily selling
whois
    and .com zone change information instead of registering domain names is
    probably open to debate.  However, it is clear that there is still
    misunderstanding of the model.  ICANN *is* collecting fees on this
activity,
    and fees that would not otherwise be collected.  It is the same reason
that
    it is a net plus for the registry - ultimately, names *are* registered
which
    would not be registered otherwise.

    Going back to the 1000 names example, since it was not clear enough...
Let's
    say that out of a batch of 1000 names, there are 10 names that the
    registrant finds would be worth $10 each per year in revenue.  Those 10
    names will be kept, ICANN will collect $2.50 and Verisign will collect
$60.
    If there was a 25 cent fee, then those 10 names will not be registered
    (because the exercise would cost $250 and net $100), and ICANN collects
    nothing.

    Now, if 5 of those names set off an alarm in Jay's trademark monitoring
    system, he collects a fee for nailing them down when they are dropped,
ICANN
    gets another $1.25, and Verisign gets  another $30.

    Maybe I'm dense, but $2.75 pays more of a business class seat from LAX
to
    Morocco than a system that pays ICANN nothing.

    >If the economics are such that the
    > "register and delete" business model can't sustain the same 25 cent
fee
    > that all registrars have to pay when registering a name, so be it --
    > then ICANN wouldn't have to spend any of its resources regulating that
    > activity.

    ICANN is not spending any resources regulating that activity.  ICANN
asked
    Verisign to drop in on the RC meeting in Mar Del Plata to discuss the
issue
    at the behest of registrars whose business model apparently includes
keeping
    an eye on other registrars.  Verisign is perfectly able to manage its
    relationships with registrars, said it was not causing a problem, and
ICANN
    does not have a horse in this race.

    There are doubtless many worthy causes that could use a quarter every
time a
    domain name is registered, but do I understand correctly that between
your
    25 cents and Jay's 25 cents, we are up to 50 cents?  Or are these
    alternative proposals which share the common theme of "making someone
pay
    something to somebody" but we don't care to whom?