[gtld-tech] Registrar Expiration Date I-D

[Jody Kolker]

Andy,

<<
I certainly find it helpful to know when the registry and registrar have a difference of opinion on how to deliver the service I am paying them to deliver.
>>

Registrants are not paying the registry and the registrar.  Registrants are only paying the registrar.  As the registrant, that is the expiration date that you as the registrant should be concerned with.  If the registrar is not fulfilling its duties, the registrant will not be able to expect much help from the registry.  The only relationship the registrant has is with the registrar, not the registry.  I think that we as a community need to enforce the fact that the registrant is paying the registrar for service not the registry (who is paid by the registrar).  

The most important date to the registrant is the registrar expiration date since technically the domain will never expire at the registry due to the fact that all domains will auto renew at the registry.  Once the domain expires at the registry, it will be renewed automatically for another year.

Putting both of the expiration dates in the registry whois does explain why there is a difference between the dates.  To me it does not address any confusion related to this issue.

Thanks,
Jody Kolker
319-294-3933 (office)
319-329-9805 (mobile) Please contact my direct supervisor Charles Beadnall (cbeadnall at godaddy.com) with any feedback.

This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.

-----Original Message-----
From: gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Newton
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 2:19 PM
To: Anderson, Marc
Cc: gtld-tech at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Registrar Expiration Date I-D

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Anderson, Marc <mcanderson at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> The proposed extension certainly does not meet the intent of the PDP working group.  In fact adding an additional expiration field to the Registry Whois output would seem to me to make Registry response inconsistent with the 2013 RAA.

So the intent of the PDP working group was to have consistency of protocol labels but ignore consistency in the meaning of those protocol labels?

As a member of the general public (I don't work for a domain registry or registrar), I certainly find it helpful to know when the registry and registrar have a difference of opinion on how to deliver the service I am paying them to deliver. Therefore I see nothing wrong with this proposal.

-andy