<!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 dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=656584914-06062005>I think it is way too premature to start drilling
down on one particular option. Since this has become a free-wheeling
discussion, I would like to propose something that would benefit all registrars
rather than penalize a few registrars or a particular business
model.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=656584914-06062005></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=656584914-06062005>There may be a registry service here so that all
registrars can offer these services with full support of
the registries. One possibility is a daily report from Verisign
and other registries of failed DNS traffic to their TLD, accompanied by
numerical data of traffic volume. Registrars could then decide or not
decide to market the data to their clients.</SPAN></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=656584914-06062005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>This would result in a much more efficient market than the
one that exists today and would allow all registrars to participate without an
undue burden on the registry.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=656584914-06062005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=656584914-06062005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Regards,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=656584914-06062005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=656584914-06062005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Tom Barrett</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=656584914-06062005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><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> Monday, June 06, 2005 10:36 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
registrars@dnso.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [registrars] Motion for a Vote on Grace
Period Deletion<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>All,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There have been a number of compelling arguments shared on this thread both
pro and con regarding the current uses of the AGP. John B. and Rob have made
some points that have certainly made me rethink some of this. I think
it boils down to two issues:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>1. AGP rules need to change to prevent the ability to use a domain name
without ever paying anything for it. It sounds like most agree with this. The
solution will have to be worked out in cooperation with the registries. But if
ICANN adopted what I propose below this may become a non-issue.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>2. There should be some fee related at least to *trial* registrations
of a duration less than 5 days. There is obviouly no agreement on this but I
still think it needs to be considered.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have no problem with the AGP being used as a trial registration period.
That should be up to the registrar. It just should not be free (to the
registrar). Personally, I prefer the idea that the fee
associated with these registrations go to ICANN in the form of the
transactional fee as designated in the budget and that this fee be
non-refundable in *all circumstances including errors and testing.* As has
been pointed out on this thread, and claimed by the registries in
Argentina, there is already some benefit to the registries by allowing *trial*
type registrations: it doesn't have any ill affect on their systems and results
in some real registrations.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Why charge the transactional fee in all circumstances?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Errors - We're talking about a quarter US. A registrar may choose
to eat it when a registrant claims an error occurs, or charge some nominal fee
for the service. I suppose that would depend on what they charge for
registrations, the registrant they are dealing with, etc.. This is such a very
small percentage of any registrars' registrations that it is almost a
non-issue as far as I am concerned. If it amounts to any significant problem for
a registrar of any size they need to be looking at what the problem is.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Testing - This is easily solvable. While the transaction fee would apply if
a registrar chose to test on their own, it could be avoided by the registries
setting aside a portion of non-sensical names that are used strictly for
production testing. As long as these *special* names are deleted within the AGP
there would be no transactional fee. We're all smart enough to come up any
number of other ideas to allow for production testing. But any fees associated
with testing that registrars do with *real* names and the AGP on their
own is a cost of doing business and their decision.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Trials - The bottom line is that names registrered that are using the AGP
as a trial period are *in use* for a 4-5 day period. If the registries want
to leave this as a free trial to the registrar that's fine with me. But the
ICANN transactional fee should apply the same as if they registered it for
a month, two months, whatever and then deleted it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>A couple of final comments regarding some of the comparisons of
the current AGP practices to current practices regarding the Renewal
Grace Period or drop catching:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Keep in mind that the Renewal Grace Period applies to domain names
that are paid-for registrations and have been in use to some extent
for at least 12 months. The *trial* type registrations taking advantage of the
AGP pay nothing to use the name for a 4-5 day period.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There have been so many proposals forwarded to solve the problems
(real or imagined) with drop catching that it's impossible to even to recall
them all. They have been debated, shot down, resurrected, shot down again, and
on and on. There is a current proposal on the table that registrars seem to
support for the most part, and that ICANN is currently considering. The only
proposals ever seriously considered by VeriSign involved eliminating the batch
pool and the *abuse* of their systems that involved pounded the heck out of it.
It's interesting to me that now they say there doesn't appear to be any problem
with the current AGP practice, or the potential growth in volume if we all start
getting involved. But my point is that some of us saw drop catching as a problem
and some of us didn't, it involves various business models and revenue streams,
yet we've been working together to address it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I see no reason to drop this discussion and attempts to find a workable
resolution. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Tim</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>