<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2627" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=082455714-06062005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Tim
and John,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=082455714-06062005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>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.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN
class=082455714-06062005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> 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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=082455714-06062005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Thanks,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>David Wascher<BR><SPAN class=082455714-06062005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff>IARegistry</FONT></SPAN> </FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org]<B>On
Behalf Of </B>Tim Ruiz<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, June 05, 2005 11:29
PM<BR><B>To:</B> john@johnberryhill.com<BR><B>Cc:</B> NevettJonathon; Jay
Westerdal; registrars@dnso.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [registrars] Motion for
a Vote on Grace Period Deletion Fee<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Tim<BR><BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><BR>--------
Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion for a Vote on
Grace Period Deletion<BR>Fee<BR>From: "John Berryhill"
<john@johnberryhill.com><BR>Date: Sun, June 05, 2005 12:36 am<BR>To:
"Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@networksolutions.com>, "Jay
Westerdal"<BR><jwesterdal@nameintel.com>,
registrars@dnso.org<BR><BR>> The ICANN Transaction Fee<BR>> is paid to
ICANN to support its hopefully worthwhile endeavors,<BR>> including
ensuring registrar compliance with contractual requirements.<BR><BR>e.g. the
consensus deletes policy?<BR><BR>> The issue is whether registrars that
register names under the<BR>> "traditional" registration business model
should be financially<BR>> supporting registrars that register names
under the "register and<BR>> delete" business model by essentially paying
their share of the ICANN<BR>> fee. I think not.<BR><BR>Whether the
"traditional" business model constitutes primarily selling whois<BR>and .com
zone change information instead of registering domain names is<BR>probably
open to debate. However, it is clear that there is
still<BR>misunderstanding of the model. ICANN *is* collecting fees on
this activity,<BR>and fees that would not otherwise be collected. It
is the same reason that<BR>it is a net plus for the registry - ultimately,
names *are* registered which<BR>would not be registered
otherwise.<BR><BR>Going back to the 1000 names example, since it was not
clear enough... Let's<BR>say that out of a batch of 1000 names, there are 10
names that the<BR>registrant finds would be worth $10 each per year in
revenue. Those 10<BR>names will be kept, ICANN will collect $2.50 and
Verisign will collect $60.<BR>If there was a 25 cent fee, then those 10
names will not be registered<BR>(because the exercise would cost $250 and
net $100), and ICANN collects<BR>nothing.<BR><BR>Now, if 5 of those names
set off an alarm in Jay's trademark monitoring<BR>system, he collects a fee
for nailing them down when they are dropped, ICANN<BR>gets another $1.25,
and Verisign gets another $30.<BR><BR>Maybe I'm dense, but $2.75 pays
more of a business class seat from LAX to<BR>Morocco than a system that pays
ICANN nothing.<BR><BR>>If the economics are such that the<BR>>
"register and delete" business model can't sustain the same 25 cent
fee<BR>> that all registrars have to pay when registering a name, so be
it --<BR>> then ICANN wouldn't have to spend any of its resources
regulating that<BR>> activity.<BR><BR>ICANN is not spending any resources
regulating that activity. ICANN asked<BR>Verisign to drop in on the RC
meeting in Mar Del Plata to discuss the issue<BR>at the behest of registrars
whose business model apparently includes keeping<BR>an eye on other
registrars. Verisign is perfectly able to manage its<BR>relationships
with registrars, said it was not causing a problem, and ICANN<BR>does not
have a horse in this race.<BR><BR>There are doubtless many worthy causes
that could use a quarter every time a<BR>domain name is registered, but do I
understand correctly that between your<BR>25 cents and Jay's 25 cents, we
are up to 50 cents? Or are these<BR>alternative proposals which share
the common theme of "making someone pay<BR>something to somebody" but we
don't care to whom? </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>