Hello Michael,

Hello Michael,

> 
> 1st Example of what I am trying to show would be...
> 
> Domain name: example.com.au (could be a .net.au for argument sake)
> Gets registered via reseller today: 1/5/2002
> expires 1/5/2004
> 
> After the go live date the domain name example.com.au is held with you
> guys. The domain name reseller decides to become a registrar. 
> All existing
> clients/registrants are now forced to renew/reregister the 
> domain name as
> new via their preferred reseller turned registrar.

No they are not forced to do any such thing.  On 1/5/2002 the registrant has
requested the reseller to register the name, and presumably will ask the
reseller to make any necessary changes to the domain name record for the
duration of the 2 year period.  Just because the reseller later becomes a
registrar does not change this obligation (acting as an agent for the
registrant for the 2 year period).  The company will continue to be able to
manage changes for that domain under its existing interface with the
registrar that issued the 2 year licence.  At the time of renewal, the
company may be able to offer a lower renewal price as a registrar as they
could have developed a more efficient registrar system  (software and manual
processes) to connect to the new registry.


> 
> There is the option that the changed company can keep up both 
> accounts and
> change the domain names over the two year period.. 

Well the company has already been paid by the registrant to provide this
service through the existing registrar.  That would be part of their
agreement with the registrant.  The number of redelegations or changes of
contact details is probably very small, most of the admin work is at time of
renewal.  Most gtld resellers when they change registrar have no problem
maintaining their interfaces with both their old registrar (for existing
domains), and their new registrar (which they use a time of renewal).


> 
> 2nd Example would be where the domain name holder is not 
> happy with the
> service and may only be 1/2 or 1 year into registration 
> period. Already
> they are out of pocket in $$$$, time and a headache to boot.

Yes - this can be handled by requiring service level agreements, and if they
are not met then auDA can arrange a transfer at no cost.  New registrar will
need to state their service levels.  Melbourne IT provides real-time
response via online interfaces for changes in delegation etc.

If a customer chooses a registrar knowing the serivce level agreements, and
the registrar meets those agreements, then it is the choice of the customer
whether they wish to exit early.  For example I may knowingly enter into a
mobile phone contract with one provider that gives a cheap deal on a good
phone, but bceasue their service levels are so bad, I may choose to upgrade
to another provider a buy out my existing contract.  This is normal business
practice.

My view is that a customer should be able to etner into a shorter licence
agreement (e.g 6 months, or better a minimum of 1 month).  This would allow
a customer to trade of flexibility, against a lower overall cost by signing
up for a longer period.  Just as gym memberships work for example.


> 
> Then the answer they get, "oh, that great you want to move to 
> us, we can do
> this but you have to pay us the total fee for a new two year 
> registration.
> Which may be more or less for another new 2 year registration.

If customer service is a big issue for a registrant, I doubt the cost of
domain name registration will be an issue.  For serious customers, the cost
is less than 1% of the cost of maintaining a website.


> 
> If is about a registrar, it will then be ACCC and the auDA actions the
> final blow. As we have just that seen happen.

Of course, audA and ACCC may take action against a registrar or a reseller
(both usually take sometime to work out).  I am talking about what steps
auDA will take to protect the registrant, if the registrant has a complaint.
> 

> 
> In the case of (3) companies may wish to move domain names 
> over to a new
> registrar for all domain names and not have domains all over 
> the place.

No problem.  We offer that service now.  What usually happens is that we
manage the renewals for the customer when the domain name comes up for
renewal, and gradually bring these under a single registrar.

As another person pointed out, the proposed transfer arrangements will allow
the registrant to choose to synchronise all the names to the one time.  That
is their choice.


In fact this does not even see like a transfer 
> but more like
> the current "terminate and re-apply" registrations for change 
> of company
> details when there is not change other than where the record is held.

No. A terminate and re-apply allows another person to register the name
between the terminate and re-apply.  It also allows the registrant details
to change.

A transfer in this scenario, changes the RoR and the expiry date on a
current domain name record.  It is technically very simple, with the use of
the EPP <transfer> command.
By contrast an EPP <renew> command only changes the expiry date.


> 
> These safe guards don't seem to be there to ensure registrant 
> get what they
> want but to rather protect the existing registrars, not to 
> mention gaining
> record creation fees for the registry.

How does that work?  The existing registrar is getting no additional revenue
during a domain name licence period.  

The registry needs to receive fees to maintain a much higher level of
infrastructure reliability, and pay off the high capital cost of
construction.   I would rather have a strong financially viable registry,
then one that provides a poor level of service, or even goes out of
business.


> >
> 
> Special case clause 6.2 which is fine.. but what constitutes a special
> case.. auDA may want to elaborate on this.

Agreed.  I suspect that auDA will elaborate this based on experience.  auDA
has already learnt much about the new policy from the generic domain name
auction exercise.


> 
> We have to see that this is a new competitive market between 
> registrars.
> 

Agreed.  The new regulatory model is fairly close to the gtld model with
better protections for the consumer (ie enforceable code of conduct).  The
gtld model is proven to have created a very competitive registrar market.

Regards,
Bruce