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

["Ross Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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