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

[Ross Rader]

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 at globvill.de> 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 at gnso.icann.org
>> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of 
>>Tim Ruiz
>> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 9:58 AM
>> To: Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
>> Cc: registrars at dnso.org
>> 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 at melbourneit.com.au>
>> > Date: Sun, May 29, 2005 9:44 pm
>> > To: registrars at dnso.org
>> > 
>> > 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
>> 
>