[council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request

[Alan Greenberg]

My mistake. I assumed that since the minimum 
extension on a transfer was one year, the minimum 
initial registration was also.

Tim, does that mean that a gTLD registry could 
unilaterally decide to support EPP with a unit of 
months (subject to the 10 year max) and therefore 
start accepting monthly registrations?

Alan

At 12/04/2010 06:42 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>Registry EPP implementations only support registrations in increments of
>one year. A registrar can offer a monthly plan (and many do), but they
>have to pay a year up front to the registry. But we're both
>contractually bound to registering names for a maximum of 10 years.
>
>Tim
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request
>From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
>Date: Mon, April 12, 2010 4:21 pm
>To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>,
><icann at rodenbaugh.com>, "GNSO Council " <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>Alan,
>
>I do not believe that there is any policy or requirement that registrars
>offer registration periods of one year.  And it should be noted that not
>registrars require one-year registrations.
>
>Chuck
>
>From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
>On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
>Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 4:51 PM
>To: icann at rodenbaugh.com; 'GNSO Council '
>Subject: Re: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request
>
>
>
>Mike, one of the other things that the registry service would do is
>effectively introduce the concept of reducing the effective minimum
>registration period from one year to one month, without the benefit of
>any ICANN policy discussion. That may be worth mentioning in the motion.
>
>Alan
>
>At 12/04/2010 02:28 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
>The BC makes the following motion for Council consideration in our next
>meeting, and would appreciate a ‘second’.  In sum, we request that
>the Council ask ICANN Staff to ‘slow down’ the process of approving
>Versign’s latest RSEP proposal and accept community input on it.
>Thanks.
>
>
>Whereas, Verisign has recently made a proposal for an additional
>registry service called “domain exchange” for the .net TLD.
>http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf
>
>
>Whereas, it appears the proposal may permit resumption of abusive
>“domain tasting” activities which have been curbed by the AGP Limits
>policy, and therefore appropriate limitations on the proposed registry
>service must be considered.
>
>RESOLVED:
>
>The Council requests that Staff make the preliminary determination that
>this RSEP proposal requires further study and public comment, because it
>could raise significant issues with security and stability and/or
>competition.
>
>
>
>Mike Rodenbaugh
>RODENBAUGH LAW
>tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
>http://rodenbaugh.com