RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request
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
I think you are confusing billing and registration. The registration period must be a minimum of one year in the current Registry Systems. How a Registrar charges for that is up to them (and indeed it appears some do it monthly)? In the new gTLD world there may well be Registries that accept monthly registrations depending on their business models. They would need to determine appropriate policy and have it ratified with ICANN one would presume. Thanks Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2010 10:59 AM To: Tim Ruiz; Gomes,Chuck Cc: icann@rodenbaugh.com; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request 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 ‘second’. In sum, we request that the Council ask ICANN Staff to ‘slow down’ the process of approving Versign’s latest RSEP proposal and accept community input on it. Thanks.
Whereas, Verisign has recently made a proposal for an additional registry service called “domain exchange†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 “domain tasting†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
Adrian, upon a bit of research, I cannot find anywhere in the existing registry agreements that set the minimum limit of 1 year. The Functional Specifications use the expression "for terms of up to ten years". As Tim mentioned, it seems that the current EPP implementations use a unit of "years", but the RFCs allow for "months" as well. Perhaps there is a requirement to use "years" buried somewhere, but I couldn't find it. The closest I could come to it is that the Maximum Price to a registrar is quoted as an annual amount. Alan At 12/04/2010 09:36 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
I think you are confusing billing and registration.
The registration period must be a minimum of one year in the current Registry Systems.
How a Registrar charges for that is up to them (and indeed it appears some do it monthly)?
In the new gTLD world there may well be Registries that accept monthly registrations depending on their business models. They would need to determine appropriate policy and have it ratified with ICANN one would presume.
Thanks
Adrian Kinderis
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2010 10:59 AM To: Tim Ruiz; Gomes,Chuck Cc: icann@rodenbaugh.com; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request
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 ââ¬secondâ. In sum, we request that the Counciuncil ask ICANN Staff to âslow downâ the processrocess of approving Versignâs latest RSEP proposal andand accept community input on it. Thanks.
Whereas, Verisign has recently made a proposal for an additional registry service called âdomain exchangeâ f 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 âÅdomain tastingâ activities which have been curbed bby 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
Chuck? Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2010 12:20 PM To: Adrian Kinderis; Tim Ruiz; Gomes,Chuck Cc: icann@rodenbaugh.com; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request Adrian, upon a bit of research, I cannot find anywhere in the existing registry agreements that set the minimum limit of 1 year. The Functional Specifications use the expression "for terms of up to ten years". As Tim mentioned, it seems that the current EPP implementations use a unit of "years", but the RFCs allow for "months" as well. Perhaps there is a requirement to use "years" buried somewhere, but I couldn't find it. The closest I could come to it is that the Maximum Price to a registrar is quoted as an annual amount. Alan At 12/04/2010 09:36 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
I think you are confusing billing and registration.
The registration period must be a minimum of one year in the current Registry Systems.
How a Registrar charges for that is up to them (and indeed it appears some do it monthly)?
In the new gTLD world there may well be Registries that accept monthly registrations depending on their business models. They would need to determine appropriate policy and have it ratified with ICANN one would presume.
Thanks
Adrian Kinderis
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2010 10:59 AM To: Tim Ruiz; Gomes,Chuck Cc: icann@rodenbaugh.com; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request
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 ‘second’. In sum, we request that the Counciuncil ask ICANN Staff to ‘slow down’ the processrocess of approving Versign’s latest RSEP proposal andand accept community input on it. Thanks.
Whereas, Verisign has recently made a proposal for an additional registry service called “domain exchangeâ€Â f 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 “œdomain tastingâ€Â activities which have been curbed bby 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
Like Alan, I cannot find any direct requirement for a minimum registration period of one year but I will check with our legal team. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 10:59 PM To: Alan Greenberg; Tim Ruiz; Gomes, Chuck Cc: icann@rodenbaugh.com; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request
Chuck?
Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2010 12:20 PM To: Adrian Kinderis; Tim Ruiz; Gomes,Chuck Cc: icann@rodenbaugh.com; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request
Adrian, upon a bit of research, I cannot find anywhere in the existing registry agreements that set the minimum limit of 1 year. The Functional Specifications use the expression "for terms of up to ten years".
As Tim mentioned, it seems that the current EPP implementations use a unit of "years", but the RFCs allow for "months" as well. Perhaps there is a requirement to use "years" buried somewhere, but I couldn't find it. The closest I could come to it is that the Maximum Price to a registrar is quoted as an annual amount.
Alan
At 12/04/2010 09:36 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
I think you are confusing billing and registration.
The registration period must be a minimum of one year in the current Registry Systems.
How a Registrar charges for that is up to them (and indeed it appears some do it monthly)?
In the new gTLD world there may well be Registries that accept monthly registrations depending on their business models. They would need to determine appropriate policy and have it ratified with ICANN one would presume.
Thanks
Adrian Kinderis
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2010 10:59 AM To: Tim Ruiz; Gomes,Chuck Cc: icann@rodenbaugh.com; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Motion re VRSN RSEP request
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 ‘second’. In sum, we request that the Counciuncil ask ICANN Staff to ‘slow down’ the processrocess of approving Versign’s latest RSEP proposal andand accept community input on it. Thanks.
Whereas, Verisign has recently made a proposal for an additional registry service called “domain exchangeâ€Â f 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 “œdomain tastingâ€Â activities which
have been curbed bby 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
participants (3)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Alan Greenberg -
Gomes, Chuck