Bruce,

> The registry needs to receive enough revenue in aggregate to operate.
> A registry could quite legitimately charge the same amount for all such
> transactions.

And with the amount of domain names and the current cost per record they in
my view will have ample. Also I do not see that the tender would have been
awarded if their financial situation was to put them at a loss and was not
able to substiancially hold up the registry with greater than needed
funds.. for the rainy day situation which we all would have a story or too
about.

> There is no forcing a new record.  A renew and transfer are both
> updates of an existing record.
>

The transfer policy that was made public clearly stated that it would be a
new record and 2 years <renewal> would have to also be attached. The EPP
<transfer> has been made into <delete-register> function.

In these terms a <transfer-renew> function would not be able to be applies
as 2 year is all that the registry will handle and <error> will result.

If a domain name can be change at anytime but must be registered for 2
years at that time then there is not need for <transfer> protocol which in
EPP terms changes the Sponsoring Registrar:

eg. R001-AURMS to R222-AURMS (or what ever the tags will look like.

which does not technically need a <renewal> term attached but is going to
be forced.

Also we are not talking about 1 month and 6 month terms here... this is
highly irrevelant, as the time that it would/should take to implement this
the registry will be well under way and it will be all to late and to
little... not to say that it's a bad idea.. need to think about that one..

Regards,

Michael-Pappas

> 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.)