No one said anything about increasing the prices of domains. If anything, this is a rationale for decreasing prices. ICANN charges all registrars $0.25 per domain registers and kept past the Add Grace Period (minus a price reduction of $0.03 last year and $0.05 in the coming year). It is included in all registrations that you buy. I was suggesting that the fee partially or completely apply to all registrations, even those that are cancelled during the AGP. I was not expecting the suggestion to be taken up on such short notice (the budget was expected to be discussed by the Board Finance Committee within 1 day), but I did hope that it would increase pressure to do *something*. To put this in perspective, in the 12 months ending in February 2007, there the number of .com domains increased by about 17,000. Presumably a larger number of new domains were actually registers and some dropped. During that same period, there were about 420,000,000 domain deleted performed. The bulk of them seemingly due to domains added and then deleted during the AGP. I have to assume that someone is paying for the added cost of all of those transactions, and it is not the domain tasters - it is us regular registrants who bear the cost. My suggestion was one way to get the domain tasters who get their millions of domains for free have to pay a fee. Although it is not clear that it is a representative sample, .org has found that by charging a $0.05 fee per AGP deleted domain (to those who do it a lot), their use of the AGP virtually disappeared. Alan At 07/07/2007 10:40 PM, RJGlass | America@Large wrote:

As a registrant, when someone charges me more fees, that someone should be accountable and have some reason for doing such.

Randy Glass A@L

On 7/7/07, Danny Younger <<mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com>dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote: Alan Greenberg posted the following comment on 27 June:

"The ALAC requests that ICANN consider charging registrars part or all of the $0.22 fee for names deleted during the AGP."

<http://forum.icann.org/lists/budget-0708/msg00001.html>http://forum.icann.org/lists/budget-0708/msg00001.html

Sorry to say, that I cannot find the minutes of the meeting in which this decision was agreed upon, nor can I find a recording of the San Juan meeting sessions.

How did the ALAC arrive at this particular recommendation without the benefit of any on-list discussion whatsoever? What input did the RALOs have into the endorsement of this one specific recommendation? Why were other viable options not endorsed?

Is this an authorized statement? If so, why wasn't it issued by the chair?

Some answers would be appreciated.

____________________________________________________________________________________

We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. <http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265>http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265

_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list <mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...

--- Draft MoU with ICANN: <http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU>http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU

Draft Operating Principles: <http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP>http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP

Draft Code of Conduct: <http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct>http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct

-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU

Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP

Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct