My mistake. I assumed that since the minimum extension on a transfer was one year, the minimum initial registration was also. Tim, does that mean that a gTLD registry could unilaterally decide to support EPP with a unit of months (subject to the 10 year max) and therefore start accepting monthly registrations? Alan At 12/04/2010 06:42 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Registry EPP implementations only support registrations in increments of one year. A registrar can offer a monthly plan (and many do), but they have to pay a year up front to the registry. But we're both contractually bound to registering names for a maximum of 10 years.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Mon, April 12, 2010 4:21 pm To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, <icann@rodenbaugh.com>, "GNSO Council " <council@gnso.icann.org>
Alan,
I do not believe that there is any policy or requirement that registrars offer registration periods of one year. And it should be noted that not registrars require one-year registrations.
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 4:51 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 'GNSO Council ' Subject: Re: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request
Mike, one of the other things that the registry service would do is effectively introduce the concept of reducing the effective minimum registration period from one year to one month, without the benefit of any ICANN policy discussion. That may be worth mentioning in the motion.
Alan
At 12/04/2010 02:28 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: The BC makes the following motion for Council consideration in our next meeting, and would appreciate a âsecondâ. In sum, we request that the Council ask ICANN Staff to âslow downâ the process of approving Versignâs latest RSEP proposal and accept community input on it. Thanks.
Whereas, Verisign has recently made a proposal for an additional registry service called âdomain exchangeâ for the .net TLD. http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf
Whereas, it appears the proposal may permit resumption of abusive âdomain tastingâ activities which have been curbed by the AGP Limits policy, and therefore appropriate limitations on the proposed registry service must be considered.
RESOLVED:
The Council requests that Staff make the preliminary determination that this RSEP proposal requires further study and public comment, because it could raise significant issues with security and stability and/or competition.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com