<snip>
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.
</snip>

I'm not sure that mobile phone contracts are a good example.  These contracts
are usually based on the fact that the cost of the handset is bundled into
the monthly fee payable.  They have a minimum contract length to ensure
that the service provider recoups the cost of the handset over the life
of the contract.  This makes them quite different to a domain name licence.

Its still not clear to me why the registrant of a domain name should lose
time on their licence just because they wish to change registrars?  Surely
the registrant should be free to transfer their domain to a new registrar
without significant penalty and without having to demonstrate to auDA that
their registrar has failed to meet their stated service levels?  

<snip>
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.
</snip>

I agree in principle.  My primary objections about the current policy are
directly related to the 2 year minimum licence, which makes any decision
to change registrars a costly one.  If shorter licences were allowed then
my objections above are less relevant as the penalty to the registrant from
changing registrars would be reduced.  I think the idea of licences shorter
than one year is certainly worthy of consideration and would potentially
assist in creating a very competitive market environment.

I think its important not to try to create a transfers policy that creates
unnecessary impediments to the freedom of choice of the registrant in reaction
to a fear that unscrupulous operators will abuse the system.  There seem
to me to be ample measures within the specified validation processes for
transfers and in what I expect to be in the enforceable code of conduct
to deal with such practices.  To assume that these protection mechanisms
will not work without first giving them a chance seems to me to be an unwarranted
and possibly self-fulfilling admission of defeat.

rgds
jon


>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
>From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin&#167;melbourneit.com.au>
>To: "'auda&#167;michael-pappas.com'" <auda§michael-pappas.com>
>Cc: "'dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au'" <dns§lists.auda.org.au>
>Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 19:39:14 +1000 
>Subject: RE: [DNS] Transfer of Registrar of Record
>
>
>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
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
>Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
>
>author, further information at the above URL.  (310 subscribers.)
>