Post-Expiration Name Recovery ICANN - SYDNEY 24 June 2009 >>MARIKA KONINGS: The GNSO Council this morning adopted the charter for this working group. So the call for volunteers is now officially open. So anyone that's interested in joining this working group and continuing work on that is invited to -- you can speak to me after the meeting and provide me with details or send an email to the GNSO secretary indicating that you'd like to join this working group. So on the right-hand screen, you'll see the agenda for this meeting. And we'll kick off with Alan Greenberg who will explain to you the ALAC request that brought this issue to the GNSO Council. Followed by that I'll quickly cover what the issues report highlighted on these issues. And we'll have someone from our compliance team talking about the role of compliance in expired domain name deletion policy followed by a presentation by Rob Hall on domain name end of life cycle. And then we've set aside a big chunk of time to actually dive into these different issues and start a discussion, basically. So I don't know. Do we have anyone on the phone? Maybe I could just invite everyone, if we do maybe a quick tour around the table, as we're a relatively small group, it may be nice to know who everyone is and what their affiliation is. Matt, can we maybe start with you there on the corner? >>MATT SERLIN: Sure. Matt Serlin from MarkMonitor. >>PETER STEVENSON: Peter Stevenson from fabulous.com. >>LAEIMAU TANUVASA: Laeimau Tanuvasa from Samoa. >>TIM COLE: Tim Cole from ICANN registrar liaison group. >>MASON COLE: Mason Cole with oversee.net. >>LISA CARTER: Lisa Carter. >>GARRETT SHEARMAN: Garrett Shearman, with ALAC, NARALO. >>WILLIAM McKELLIGOTT: William McKelligott, ICANN staff, contractual compliance. >>ROB HALL: Rob Hall, Momentous. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Alan Greenberg, ALAC GNSO. >>CHRIS CROWTHER: Chris Crowther, Internetmedia.net. (off microphone) >>TANYA CORONADO: Tanya Coronado, Internetmedia.net. >>GURPREET MONGA AMARJIT: Gurpreet Amarjit, Amarjit & Associates. >>JEFF ECKHAUS: Jeffrey Eckhaus. >>Nick Dellis, register.com. >>YUNGJIN SUH: Yungjin Suh, KRNIC. >>CHUNG HEE JIN: Chung Hee Jin, with KKR registry. >>MARIKA KONINGS: As well introduce -- is there a low end mic. >>That one is -- >>EDMUND KUNG: Edmund Kung from webnic.cc >>MARIKA KONINGS: The microphone on the stand as well, if you don't mind. >>JARMO LINDMARK: Jarmo Lindmark from NICTRADE. >>SAMANTHA EISNER: Samantha Eisner, ICANN staff. >>AIMEE DEZIEL: Aimee Deziel, Momentous. >>ANDREW: Andrew, NT. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Thank you all very much. So then we're going to start first with Alan Greenberg from ALAC who will talk a little bit more about the ALAC request and the thinking behind it. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Okay. Thank you all for coming. As you know, we're talking about what happens to domain names after expiration. A little bit about me. I've been a name owner or managing people who were domain name registrants for about 20 years now. So I have a little bit of experience or I should have. In pretty much all the cases that I know of, my own names or ones I was responsible for, we renewed before expiration. So I was rather innocent on what the process would be if you don't -- if you don't renew in time. I was appointed to the ALAC in 2006. And suddenly I started receiving e-mails and notices from people saying maybe you can help me and various stories of domain names that expired for some reason or another. Occasionally, there were obviously things that people were doing improperly. Often e-mail addresses weren't working any more and a whole range of stories. And I started look into just what was going on so I could understand it. Now, as I said, the typical thing was "my domain names stopped working." Sometimes a parked page with paper clicks on it. Sometimes you saw other symptoms. Usually the person would start doing some investigation, find out they were no longer the owner. And sometimes they could buy the domain back at some price, not always understood ahead of time, and sometimes they couldn't. Now, over the years, ICANN has implemented a number of policies and practices to try to address what happens at the end of domain name life. If you go back to the innocent days of the late 1990s, the -- what would happen was pretty predictable. But over the years various things have changed. The whole concept of a marketplace for domain names has changed. And at various points over the last 9 years or so ICANN and parts of ICANN have decided that it's not quite working the way it should. And various policies have been put in place, practices have -- best practices have been put in place. But the bottom line is it still doesn't seem to be working. And this, I think, is the best example. This is an ICANN announcement, 21st of September, 2004, talking about the expired domain deletion policy which had just been put in place, which was supposed to address some of the problems of being able to get your domain name back after it officially expired. Notice the date is the same. On the same date ICANN announced that a number of registrars had enacted contractual agreements which allowed them to bypass the EDDP. So that, I think, sort of summarizes the situation that we have been in a continual game of catchup where the domain marketplace has been one step ahead of ICANN in terms of putting in place processes and policies to make sure that, if you inadvertently lost a domain name, if you inadvertently let it expire, you could get it back under some reasonable terms. So we requested an issues report. And in the process I looked at a lot of the documents, including an excellent 2007 workshop in Lisbon which Rob Hall, one of our later speakers gave. And I learned an awful lot about the process. It became clear, as I said, that, as we implemented various things, they became less and less relevant. You'll notice one of the small things is the domain redemption grace period, the RGP. As Rob will be telling you, that was something that was viewed as being the absolute fail-safe mechanism, which is, to a large extent, irrelevant for most domain names today. And we'll be hearing the details. And the ALAC requested the issue report in October of 2008 with the hopes that it would eventually turn into a policy development process, which indeed it has. The charter for the working group was approved this morning. And we're now looking for volunteers to work on the working group so that over the next "N" months we can try to put a policy in place or practices in place which will address the problem and make sure that registrants have a safety net. Now, we're looking for a number of outcomes. And I won't go into the details of what they are. You can read those yourself later. But, in essence, we're looking for two things. We're looking that someone who lets their domain name inadvertently expire, they can restore it. They can get it back under some reasonable terms and predictable terms. And, lastly, we're looking for e-mail security. Right now it's not clear what happens to your e-mail if your domain suddenly is no longer pointing to your Web site because it may -- the e-mail may continue working. It may go into a bit bucket or, conceivably, it may go somewhere else. And that's not a real comfortable thing. And that's all I plan to do on the introduction. We'll be going into much more detail on the specifics as we go along. If you want to note down -- unfortunately, Marika, that's not in the version you have online. But it's a URL, tiny URL.com/post-X. And that's a copy of the issues report, which includes a request for the issues report and associated documentation. Thank you. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Are there any questions for Alan? >>JEFF ECKHAUS: Jeff Eckhaus from ENOM. Unless I'm mistaken, the e- mail -- does that fall under this purview? Considering it's a service that might be part of -- you know, part of -- it's part of the domain, but it's not necessarily part of the ICANN process. So is that something we're going to be discussing? Or I don't know is that part of this -- should it be part of this discussion saying the thing that you said at e-mail is at issue? >>ALAN GREENBERG: Well, when you register a domain name, it points -- and it's active, it points somewhere. E-mail that you send to that same address may go to the same place as the Web site. It may go to a different place, depending on how the DNS entries are set up. But, regardless, if someone else takes over your domain name, then they effectively can take over the e-mail address and redirect it somewhere else. Or they can keep it going wherever you want it to. That's purely up to whoever has the control over the DNS entries. So, if you no longer own the domain name and have control over it, then whoever does have control over it has control over where your e-mail gets delivered. And very much an ICANN issue. >>ROB HALL: I have a question, Alan. Are you suggesting that you'd like to see some control over the e-mail addresses post redelegation of the domain to someone else? So I'll give you an example. If the domain was deleted, goes through the RGP, goes through the delete period and is acquired by someone else, you'd still like to see e-mail protections that that person then with a new owner or the new service contract holder of the domain couldn't use the same e-mail addresses? >>ALAN GREENBERG: I'd like to say yes to you, but I'm somewhat realistic. I think the whole time period we're talking about is a relatively modest number of days, weeks, after the expiration. Once you don't -- once you really no longer own it for whatever reason, it's either dead or goes to whoever owns it now. We can't change that. >>ROB HALL: Got it. Thank you. >>ALAN GREENBERG: But we're talking about the period immediately following expiration while you still have a chance of redeeming it. No one else should have custody of your e-mail. Whether it bounces, goes into a bit bucket, I'm not sure. The working group is going to have to look at things like that. >>JEFF ECKHAUS: I want to clarify, so it's on the report. It's not that the domain expired because something happened. It's because the registrant didn't pay the renewal fee or their renewal period is up. It's not that something happened. It's explicit why the domain expires. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Obviously, except in the rare cases of someone doing something naughty, it expired because it expired, yes. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Other questions? We'll have a chance to dig deeper into the issues at the end of the session. So next now quickly go over the issues report and its recommendations. You heard Alan talking about the background of the requests, so don't go into that again. Domain name life cycle is something that Rob will cover in his presentation. But we're talking basically here about the period expired to the right section. So I said Rob will cover that more. So, just to quickly cover what currently happens under the current existing policy and contracts. So the RAA actually states that a registrar shall provide notice to each new registrant of the deletion and auto renewal policy. So every registrant should know or should be able to find that information on what happens once their domain name expires. The RAA also specifies that the registrar should clearly display this on its Web site in addition to a fee charged for the recovery during the RGP. William will talk in a second a little bit more about how compliance has been auditing this. And RAA also requires registrars to send at least two notices or reminders to the registrants that their domain name is going to expire. We have several registrars around the table. I think in practice it's probably more than two notices are being sent. But I'm sure they'll provide information on that after -- at a later stage. So, as I said, as domain name is not renewed before the expiration, the registration will automatically be renewed by the registry the first day after the expiration and entered into what is called the auto renew grace period. The maximum length is 45 days, but a registrar can opt to delete before that time. So during this period a domain name might resolve normally, might stop resolving, or point to a registrar-designed IP address which might host a parking Web site or under construction or a temporary page. There are no rules or guidelines on what this should be. So the majority -- I mean, we looked at the different registration agreements. And the majority of them do seem to have a provisions in place that allows a registrar to redirect a domain into an IP address designated by the registrar. This is all within the contracts. A registrar may elect to often auto-renew a policy so a registrant can recover its domain name during that period. But it's not under an obligation to do so. Once a domain name is deleted, then it enters into the redemption grace period. And I think this is something that Rob will talk a little bit more about as well that it seems to be that the current practices that the most domain names actually don't reach RGP because before they are deleted, they actually get sold, auctioned, or transferred to another party. So, currently as well, one thing we found in our research is that many registration agreements provide for the right of renewal by the registrar and the transfer of ownership to the registrar through a subsidiary or affiliate or third party in case a registrant does not renew the domain name. And Rob, I'm sure, will talk more about this. But he made a statement in the previous presentation that basically states that, if the domain name has any value over six dollars, they no longer are entering the RGP. So the redemption grace period -- the original intention for the RGP was to prevent unintentional deletions. So to allow for registrants to recover domain names that they didn't mean to not renew. So this is not established as a consensus policy. It's actually a voluntary decision by registrars to offer restoration or not. But research has shown that we do believe that most registrars are offering restoration. The RGP is a 30-day registry hold period. So in just 30 days registrars can restore the names by liaising with the registry. In this period the domain name will actually not function or resolve. So it's very obvious that a domain name has expired at that stage. So the registrant has to go through the registrar to redeem the domain name at that stage. It has to pay down a renewal fee that the registrar can charge the registrant. I said before this charge needs to be posted on their Web site. At this stage it's not possible to transfer a domain name to another registrar, which is one of the questions that was raised, I think, as well in the ALAC request as to why what's it not a possibility. So then after that it goes into pending delete. It cannot be recovered at this stage or transferred to anyone else. And it's deleted from the registry after five days. And after that it becomes available for registration by whoever. First come, first served, I think. So in our analysis we found that the auto renewal grace period and RGP do not address the concerns raised by the ALAC, that, you know, some registrants might not have sufficient notice or opportunity to recover their expired domain names. As mentioned before, the RGP is not a consensus policy. So it's not a right of registrants to be able to recover the names during RGP. Many registrars do offer auto renewal policy but are under no obligation to do so. And there are different terms and conditions and practices in relation to that. Also, the consequence of the provisions that allow for registrar to transfer a domain to a third party or affiliate or to be able to auction or sell it afterwards doesn't seem to be clearly understood by registrants at the time of signing, even though there's no obligation to provide that information to registrants when they sign a contract. One thing we find as well -- and there's one question raised by ALAC as well that there's no obligation to put the domain name on hold. So, as it might continue to resolve normally, a registrant may not realize at that time that their registration has expired. So we did make a couple recommendations for questions we thought needed further discussion and investigation by the community. So we recommended to initiate a PDP on these specific issues. And I said we'll go deeper in these -- into these at the end of the session. So, as part of those specific questions, we thought it would be important at well to work closer together and get a better understanding from the compliance staff and see how the RAA provisions come into the picture and how these are enforced. And one of the suggestions we made as well is whether maybe there should be other means explored to have better information on these issues possibly through cooperation between GNSO or consumer protection organizations. And we recommended that a further fact-finding workshop might be helpful in focusing the PDP. And that's why we're all here as well. So the GNSO Council reviewed the report. They initiated a PDP. Had a drafting team. And I said the charter was adopted at the GNSO Council meeting this morning. So I won't go into the charter now. I think we'll -- I'll point you to the Wiki where this can be found. So the group will be looking -- as I said, we'll be looking at these questions more. The working group is expected to organize a follow-up workshop in the Seoul meeting and present an update to the council at that stage as well. And I think very important as well that this group has been recommended to consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead of recommendations for consensus policies. I think it's very important that this group basically works towards the best possible outcome and then looks at what fits that, if that's best practices or consensus policies, depending, of course, as well on scope issues and what might fall within picket fence. But I won't bore you with that discussion. So how to get involved. As I said, the working group is now officially looking for volunteers. So you can talk to the secretariat or talk to me afterwards. We have a Wiki set up where you can find all the information, and it will be used as a working space. So, if you monitor on a regular basis, you'll be able to see what's going on. Of course, participation in today's workshop is a fantastic start. And there's some things to further information, the issues report itself. And there are as well translations available of the issues report on the GNSO Web site for those interested. Are there any questions at this stage? Any questions? I mean, the presentations will be posted as well following this meeting. So you should be able to find this on the ICANN Web site as well later on. No questions? I'll turn to William. Let me just pull up William's slides. Go ahead. >>WILLIAM McKELLIGOTT: Good afternoon. My name is William McKelligott, and I'm here to provide most recent contractual compliance's most recent audit activity related to the expired domain deletion policy. We undertook two audits -- EDDP part 1 and 2. EDDP part 1 looked at the inclusion of deletion and renewal policy on all those accredited registrars that were actively sponsoring domain names as of the date in which we conducted the audit. We found that a large majority of the registrars were either in compliance or quickly remedied their noncompliance based on communications that they had with our team. As it relates to EDDP part 2, which relates to fees for recovering domains in the RGP, we found that a significant number -- more than half those registrars we reviewed -- again, we reviewed their -- their websites to see if the content of the -- or you know, of the consensus policy was mirrored in the information that it provided to current and potential registrants. And we found that there was perhaps some misunderstanding of what the spirit of the consensus policy was all about in that they were mentioning that there were fees associated with recovering domains that were in RGP yet not specifying exactly what those fees are. So we will be sending out notices to those registrars so they can modify that information and also perhaps work with our legal team to craft and advisory to clarify what the spirit of that consensus policy is. Any questions? That was -- that's the update we have in terms of EDDP. I don't know if there are any questions for me. >>ALAN GREENBURG: You say you checked on compliance by looking at the websites of the registrars. How do you handle -- how do you do the same thing for registrars that largely or totally use resellers? >>WILLIAM MCKELLIGOTT: Right. Because ICANN does not have a contractual relationship with resellers, they are not part of the scope of the audit. So, basically, we look -- and insofar as they have -- so far as the party that we're reviewing has a contractual relationship with ICANN, which in this case are the registrars, we review the information that is made available by the registrars to the community. >>ALAN GREENBERG: So, essentially, those that are using resellers are not part of that -- of the audit process. And you can't really talk about compliance? You can't make a statement of how well they're complying or not? (Speaker off microphone.) >>The registrars aren't required to be compliant. >>ROB HALL: I think your question is kind of twofold, if I can take a crack at it. One, I don't think he didn't audit registrars that use resellers. So I think he audited registrars that use resellers. And those registrars were found to be compliant. I think what you're implying is that the resellers have never been audited. And his answer to that is there's no contractual obligation for the reseller to include these provisions. >>ALAN GREENBERG: One presumes if reseller X is a reseller for registrar B, that registrar B has an obligation for compliance and, presumably, they pass that obligation on to their reseller. And their resellers are expected to honor that. >>ROB HALL: The compliance obligation is on the registrar, not the reseller. As long as the registrar has it on his Web site, that meets the compliance obligation. >>MARIKA KONINGS: So I guess, Rob, what you're saying in that case it would be for the registrar itself to monitor or audit their resellers if they would want them to be compliant? >>ROB HALL: Not at all. I'm not saying that at all. Just the opposite. >>MARIKA KONINGS: No, but, if it's -- >>ROB HALL: I'm saying if the contract requires the registrar to have it on their Web site. There is nothing in any contract that requires a reseller to have it on theirs. >>MARIKA KONINGS: But neither in the relationship between the registrar and the reseller, you know, not with ICANN. But does the registrar -- it's a question. Does the registrar or -- is there a requirement for the reseller, in principle, in theory, in their relationship with the registrar to follow those obligations? >>ROB HALL: No. In fact, most registrars may not even know who their resellers are. So some have formal relationships with their resellers. But we, for example, would have law firms that are acting as a reseller that, you know, are simply coming to us. Do I think all the law firms that buy domains from us have what the RGP fee is? No, they just don't. So that may be a little different than a reseller that's actively, you know, signed up with a registrar. But there's no contractual obligation, to my knowledge, that says a registrar -- a reseller or even a registrar must force its resellers to have these same provisions in their page. Ultimately, the registrar is the one responsible to the registrant. The fact that there may be a middle party that facilitates that registration isn't in the contracts. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Your use or reference to the law firm I don't think is applicable. The revised RAA, which is slowly coming into being, defines the term capital R "Reseller" as someone who resells domains and has an agreement with a registrar to sell domains. So it is a defined term, and it doesn't apply to just the law firms who do it, you know, on behalf of their clients. Those are not resellers, capital R, under the definition of the current RAA. >>ROB HALL: But you're suggesting that the law firm that comes to us and says, "I'd like to have an agreement to be a reseller," must then put it on their law firm's Web site? >>ALAN GREENBERG: I guess I asked the question from a different point of view. I'm not looking at the obligation from that point of view. Compliance did a review by basically looking at what information is available to an innocent registrant who comes to register a name. Am I correct? That was the -- that was the -- that was the rationale for looking at the websites and seeing how readily the information was available. >>WILLIAM McKELLIGOTT: Correct, because that's what the consensus policy says. >>ALAN GREENBERG: And I'm just pointing out for better or worse that one happens to go to a reseller, that information may not be available in the way it would be if you went directly to a registrar. If that's good or bad we can talk about later. I'm just trying to salvage that's the fact. >>WILLIAM McKELLIGOTT: I'm sorry, was there a question. >>ALAN GREENBERG: No, it wasn't a question unless what I'm saying was wrong it's not a question. >>WILLIAM McKELLIGOTT: It's not, no. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Any other questions or comments? Rob, do you want to run the presentation or do you want me to go ahead? >>ROB HALL: No, go ahead. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Let me put it up. >>ROB HALL: I thought I'd start with a bit of an introduction for those of you who don't know me. My name is Rob Hall. I am the CEO of Momentous.ca Corporation, and I put my e-mail on the screen. I'm the former vice chair of the Canadian Association of Internet Service Providers, the former chairman of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority which governs the dot ca domain. So I've had past memberships here in both the ISP and ccTLD constituencies and I'm currently a member of the registrar constituency and, in fact, I sit on the nomination committee to ICANN for this current year. And I hope to be a future member of perhaps the registry constituency but that's -- we'll see if we ever get through this gTLD process. I want to offer a bit of a disclaimer, apology upfront. I've used some of -- registrars in my presentation. In no way do I mean to suggest or single them out, other than simply ways of documenting a few examples. So I'm certainly not interested in targeting any individual registrar, I just needed some examples and I certainly used a few of my fellow competitors. Next slide, please. This is the domain life cycle graphic that ICANN has used, that ICANN created, so I've got it up there as five to seven years ago what happened or what was intended. So it still applies today, although what applies within some of the phases is a little slightly or perhaps slightly different. So if you look at the far left where a domain name is available -- back, back, I'm sorry -- the far left where the domain name is available, and then becomes registered in that big green arrow, then it may be registered for anywhere between one and ten years, although ten years is the maximum that you can preregister or register ahead for a domain name, you can certainly, you know, continue to renew it for ten years every -- indefinitely. The domain name that expires given an expiry date, we have to keep in mind that domain names are essentially service contracts with our registrar. So at the end of the service contract, the domain name is said to expire and goes into what we call an autorenew grace period of 45 days. This is really a legacy thing of VeriSign's, from the old days, where they autorenewed every domain name on expiry and then gave the registrar 45 days to delete it and get their money back. So it was meant as a mechanism to facilitate ease for the registrar where the registrar didn't have to go out and manually renew every name. In fact, just the opposite happened. As a protection mechanism, the registry automatically renewed every domain and then gave the registrar 45 days to delete it. Through an ICANN consensus process, a redemption grace period was put in following that, because previous to the redemption grace period or RPG existing, a domain would be available from the registry for reregistration about five days later, and a company called SnapNames pioneered, really, figuring out when that five-day process would start by, interestingly enough, an extra decimal being added to the WHOIS by VeriSign by mistake and really made a go of figuring out when will these things delete. So part of the new deletion process was to implement a redemption grace period where the domain would be put on hold and would not resolve and could only be recovered by the existing registrant. And we'll talk a lot about the existing registrant 'cause it's important to keep in mind who the existing registrant is at any given period through here. And then the domain goes into a pending delete phase for five days where the domain cannot be recovered by anyone and then the domain is made available or released for reregistration by any party through a registrar, obviously. It's important to note that up until the redemption grace period in red, so any of the green arrows, the domain still resolves and is still in the zone file so the domain still works. Where points may differ -- and you'll see that as I go on -- in the red arrows, the two periods of redemption grace period, pending delete, the domain does not resolve and is not published by the registries in the zone file. I think it was mentioned earlier that the redemption grace period is, in fact, not consensus policy; however, I believe every single registry has implemented it. It is not something the registrars do. The way a domain enters redemption grace period is simply the registrar deletes it. It's important to note, I think, that anytime in that autorenew grace period after expiry, the registrar can delete that domain and it will enter the RGP. So they do not have to wait 45 days. Some registrars can delete, you know, the day after expiry, interestingly enough, typically because they believe, as is the case, that the -- they can get more money for the domain for their redemption grace period getting a backer to their redemption period than their standard renewal fee. So, but I think those registrars are, frankly, few and far between, but some registrars do delete the day after expiry as opposed to waiting for the full 45 days. Other registrars delete at different periods through the 45 days. Most of what we're going to talk about and what's changed -- next slide, please -- is in this autorenew grace period. So what happens in the autorenew grace period? I think over the last few years we've seen dramatic change in what happens to a domain during this autorenew grace period. Next slide. This is a blowup, if you will, of what happens in that autorenew grace period. And what started out happening was the domain expired on the left. And the domain registrar particularly becomes the registrant of the domain at that point, so the WHOIS changes to point to the domain -- to typically a holding entity of the domain registrar. The registrar then enters what they call a registrar grace period, which is interesting. So most registrars implement some sort of grace period of their own. This is not to be confused with the RGP, the redemption grace period, which happens after deletion, I know they actually have the same acronym which causes some confusion, but the registrar grace period is simply the amount of time the registrar waits before attempting to sell the domain to someone else. There's often a sale or auction period of five to ten days, and the domain is transferred to a new owner. So what happens is you're no longer seeing domains delete; rather, you're seeing domains transferred to a new owner post-expiry. The domain typically will redirect to a pay per click page or an advertising page often that says, "This domain has expired," and gives the former registrant the ability to go and renew it during that 30-day period. Some registrars do not transfer the domain to a new registrant for a period of time after expiry. I believe Go Daddy had said they were 12 days. So there was a 12-day period before the domain transfer in this period started. But essentially this is by and large what we're seeing from the vast majority of registrars now, is this transferring of the domain and the testing of the domain. Next slide, please. We'll talk about the testing of the domain. So what happens before the domain deletes is there's actually a decision tree being done is did the domain sell at auction, yes or no. So if the domain sold at auction, it's typically transferred to a new owner. If the answer is no and the domain didn't sell at auction, then the question is did the pay per click page that has been up for the previous 30 or 45 days, did it bring in more than $6 in that if it were to go on for the whole year, is it bringing in more than -- and you can see this presentation's old because the com is now, what, $7.20 or something, plus the ICANN fees, I gather. So did the -- is the domain -- the basic value proposition is, is the domain projected to make more annually than the cost of the domain. And the answer is if -- if the answer to that is yes, the registrars often will then, again, transfer the domain to a portfolio account or a holding account, if you will. Otherwise, the registrar will delete the domain and the domain enters the redemption grace period. So I'll leave this slide up at the end of my talk because I think it probably is a lot of where the contention or the confusion comes in. I've used some very deliberate words in speaking about former registrant and current registrant. And I think a lot of the confusion in this space comes into play when you talk about registrant rights or what -- you know, what right does the registrant have. And that's why I've used terms like "former registrant." It's important to keep in mind that, on expiry, the registrant typically changes. So when you talk about a domain entering RGP or a domain being able to be transferred doing the autorenew grace period, it traditionally is very difficult to do that. 'Cause the former registrant is no longer the current registrant. And therefore, any policy you put into place dealing with the, quote, registrant will be, in fact, dealing with the registrar or the registrar's holding entity at that time. So we can try and put all the policies we want into place. However, the registrant, at the period of time the domain expires, is most often not the former registrant, and that's something to keep in mind as we go forward. I see a question. Do you want to take questions now, Marika? >>MARIKA KONINGS: Can you hold the question or is it a clarification? >>ALAN GREENBERG: Sorry, it's a clarification but I can hold it. >>ROB HALL: Next slide, please. I want to give you a couple examples of WHOIS and thanks to domain tools. These were, as was mentioned earlier, I gave a presentation similar to this in 2007. And I -- these are from that time frame, but I think they adequately demonstrate exactly the typical behavior. So this is a domain called necktie.com. You can see it was owned -- the registrant was a company called Huntington Clothiers in Columbus, Ohio. And this is the WHOIS prior to the expiry date. I don't make any comment on the fact that it looks like the domain phone number, the administrative contact phone number is incorrect. But you notice that it also has the yahoo.com domain servers. Next slide, please. WHOIS, during expiry, you notice the registrant has now changed to something called "pending renewal or deletion." The administrative conduct has changed along with the administrative contact e-mail, and the domain servers, you notice at the bottom, have now changed to ns1ns2.pendingrenewal deletion.com. Typically, this would point that domain at some sort of a this domain needs to be renewed page, often with pay per click-type search results on it. The other important thing to note is the administrative contact e-mail address has changed, which means transferring this domain very difficult. Basically, if you think how you transfer a domain name, you have to ask the former -- sorry, you have to ask the current registrant do you agree to this transfer and the new registrar has to get a form permission from the current registrant. So you're basically asking this entity called pending renewal or deletion do they want to transfer the name to you which you can often imagine the answer is almost 100% of the time "no." Next slide, please. Here is the WHOIS of the same domain after sale to a new registrant so you can see now someone named of Morgan Dunn in Garden Grove, California owns it. You can see that the date of which the record was created, so the domain record was created is still February 12th, 1997, even though all of this happened in 2007 and 2008. So you can see that the domain actually never deleted, the domain went through the expiry process, the registrant decided not to renew it or did not renew it. The domain went through an expiry process and is happily with a new registrant and there are now new domain name servers listed on the domain. Next slide. This is a typical Web site snapshot, if you will, and I have to apologize, it is a few years old, I'm sure there are more current ones out there now, that would be a typical example of necktie.com. In fact, this was the Web site at the time that the domain was in that pending renewal phase. So you can see they -- Network Solutions has branded a standard page that would be displayed. The interesting thing about this is it would indeed inform the registrant that this site no longer pointed to their store. So anyone going to the site would be able to see this site no longer pointed to the yahoo store of necktie.com. Next slide, please. I've been asked to speak about some of the effects. The effect on the RGP is interesting. There's always some confusion between the registrar grace period and the redemption grace period because they're both called RGP but the only one mandated by ICANN is the redemption grace period. The registrar grace period is simply the amount of time a registrar allows the former registrant to gain the domain back, and that varies widely. Some registrars, you know, say no, as soon as it expires, you can't have it back. Although they are in the vast minority, we keep hearing about them, but we actually have never seen a registrar actually do that. Most registrars will give the client, you know, up to 30 days to get it back, the former registrant 30 days to get it back. Some go as long as 75 days. So I believe it's Tucows has long said they'll give 75 days after expiry so the 45-day autorenewal period plus the 30-day RGP for the former registrant to get the domain back even if it's been auctioned or sold to someone else. So it's still possible that many registrars for the former registrant to renew that domain even though it's going through this process, so I don't mean to imply at any point that as we go through this process or as the domain goes through this process that the former registrants are unable to get the domain back, it simply depends on the registrar and their own internal policies so there's no ICANN policy that governs this, this is simply a registrar providing great customer service to their former registrant. Domains of value no longer enter the ICANN redemption grace period. Those of us in the drop catching game, and I know the three big ones in the world, SnapNames, NameJet and pool.com are all represented here. They will tell you, I'm sure, that there is very little in the actual drop of significant value anymore. Registrants have gotten very good at figuring out that they own something of value and selling it before it expires and certainly registrars have gotten good at extracting any valuable name; in fact, I would say in the last couple years the only super valuable one we've seen deleted are a result of an RGP ordered the transaction instead of ordered it transferred but, again, those are few and far between. The domain could be transferred the day of order the day it expires under existing rules, although I have to admit I've never seen a registrar do that. So it is possible that, you know, the second the former registrant no longer has any rights in that domain, that it could be transferred and sold to a new registrant or a new owner the day after it expires. This is a service contract and the registrar does have something of value. Next slide. The effects on transfers, so what effects do what we're seeing in the industry have on transfers. Transfers are basically, no longer possible after the expiry date. Technically, they can be done, practically they can't. So as you saw on my WHOIS example, the gaining registrar in the transfer has the duty to e-mail the WHOIS information of the former registrant -- or the current registrant, rather, and ask permission to transfer. Basically, we're now e-mailing the former registrar asking permission for his client to move the domain to us. I think Jeff has a question but I think she wanted us to wait until the end of the presentation. >>JEFF ECKHAUS: Just one point. I'm not with Network Solutions, but I just have a question on this, because you've stated this a few times that it goes to the registrar. Are you sure that the new e-mail there's that goes up there does not forward to the previous registrant. >>ROB HALL: In my example, it's the same used on every domain. It's not an alias type of e-mail. >>JEFF ECKHAUS: Are you sure about -- if you could you go back to that, I believe there was some variances with some of the -- >>ROB HALL: If you go back to it. One more forward. >>JEFF ECKHAUS: It might be on there, but I just don't want to make the assumption that they don't have some sort of technology or something that forwards to the previous registrar, unless we're 100% sure of that. I don't know the answer to it. >>ROB HALL: It could. >>JEFF ECKHAUS: It could, I want to make because you're stating that -- >>ROB HALL: Jeff, in all honesty, can you tell me how pending renewal deletion solution on networkssolutions.com which is on every single name they expire regardless of the former registrant forwards? >>JEFF ECKHAUS: Listen, they might have somebody sifting through it, I don't know the answer to that. Here's the thing, can you state categorically that it cannot go to the former registrant? I just want to make sure that -- I don't know the answer to that, so I want to make sure it can't be. >>ROB HALL: There are some -- okay, let's talk about that for a second. There are some registrars that do have, for lack of a better word, an alias e-mail-type situation where the e-mail may forward to the former registrant. The problem with the transfer is, from -- another problem with the transfer is the new registrar taking in the domain now has this information as the registrant, not the former information of the registrant. So now all of a sudden you get an e- mail back saying, yes, I agree to this from someone you have no idea who they are and no way to verify who they are. So it does cause some other problems. And the practical effect is I don't think we're seeing as many transfers during this period as before. >>JEFF ECKHAUS: I don't know the answer to that. I just want to say unless they were -- somebody was here from Network Solutions to say that it is not their practice -- >>ROB HALL: Sorry, I'm not -- as I said earlier, I'm not trying to in any way say that Network Solutions is doing anything wrong, nor any registrar is doing anything wrong. I'm simply trying to -- what I've been asked to do is to present what typically is happening in the industry. So, you know, is it possible some registrars do things differently? Yes. Is it possible Network Solutions is manually combing through that? Absolutely, yes. That is typically possible. The -- as I mentioned, the other effect on transfer is the current registrant is now typically the registrar's entity or an entity controlled by the registrar. That has the problem of registrars -- gaining registrar in transfers is supposed to take a WHOIS snapshot on the transfer of the domain and make sure the domain stays in that same WHOIS information or with that same registrant. If you cannot get through to the former registrant, there's -- no permission is given, it's impossible to initiate the transfer under the new transfer policy and therefore, the former registrant must typically renew with the existing registrar. Next slide, please. What is -- I apologize for this graphic, this is an old one. But what is the effect of this? In effect, what you're doing is creating registrar silos where if you want a domain name, you have to go to the registrar that has the domain name in order to get it as opposed to domain names dropping back into the registry where they're available to all registrars. So it has the effect of creating what I'll call a registrar silo, where if you know that a certain domain name is at one given registrar -- in my example I think I have gradient.com@godaddy, the only place you'll be able to register that domain name until it deletes is at Go Daddy. So you need to have vast knowledge of the domain system to be able to keep track of which registrar has your name and to be able to go there to get that name. Next. I'll talk briefly about renewal practices. Typically, about 30% of domains do not renew. This goes up and down depending, obviously, on the economy, so I would suspect it's a little higher than that now. Maybe an incentive now -- there may be an incentive now for the registrar not to renew the domain name. Over 50% of domain names in existence, I believe, are for sale. So if you look at some of the stats of how many domains say they're for sale or simply a pay per click parking page, over 50% of them are for sale. Mason? >>MASON COLE: When you say "for sale," do you mean they're currently registered or they're in some form of -- >>ROB HALL: No, I'm sorry, I mean they're currently registered by a registrant and that registrant may have them listed for sale, they're in the process. >>MASON COLE: Right so it's pre-expiration? >>ROB HALL: Correct. >>MASON COLE: Okay, all right, thanks. >>ROB HALL: And something I've been saying for years which is that the secondary market is now the primary market. So we concentrate in this industry on the -- what I'll call the primary market, which is a registrar that takes a domain that doesn't exist, takes a bunch of strings that does not exist, puts it together and creates a domain as the primary way people get domain names. That's not the case. If you look at the housing market, less than 10% of the houses every year that turn over are new houses versus 90% being already existing houses, and that's what's happening in the domain market now, is the secondary market, or what we refer to as the secondary market, which is -- you know, encompasses all of these phases from the registrant selling the domain himself to what I'll call the expiry market to the deletion market, all three of those markets form the secondary market, and they have now become the primary market. Next slide? >>ALAN GREENBERG: By "primary," you mean largest value? >>ROB HALL: I mean the largest value and the way most people, I think, are starting to get domain names. Registrar portfolios. So it's interesting to note that the valuations of registrars has changed slightly. Domain portfolios are typically worth four to five times annual revenue of the pay per click on the portfolio. It's interesting to note that I had to change this slide from when I first spoke in 2007 to where that number, four to five, was eight to ten. So we've see domain portfolios' value decline in value, and that value, of course, does not take in the marquee name. So if you have a domain portfolio where you have a marquee name in it, that will change the value of that portfolio quite significantly. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Define "marquee." >>ROB HALL: Shoppers.com or rob.com. Something that has a marquee value. Business.com. I think if you're looking at a typical portfolio of 100,000 names, if there's no single marquee names, what you do is typically add up all the pay per click revenue from under all the revenue all the domains make in a year and apply some multiple to it in order to value that portfolio. However, as soon as you get into a name that is a marquee that someone may want, rather than a vast collection of them, you change that equation quite significantly 'cause you could have one name in a portfolio that makes no pay per click value -- money has no pay per click value and yet has extreme value on the open market. The registrar portfolios make very small margins on renewals. And so a lot of registrars are -- you know, due to competitive market pressure, which is a good thing, prices have dropped for registrants over the past few years. The interesting thing is registrars sometimes make very large margins on resales and auctions that keep their portfolio. So where a registrar may make as low as 2 or $3 for renewal, we've seen, you know, from 60 to $500,000 for resale of a domain name. So I say this to help people understand what's happening in the domain industry because it is very different, I think, than what happened five to seven years ago. In fact, you might argue that some registrars are now more -- worth more for their own portfolio or their name's under management than their traditional registrar business. So I would speculate that if you were to take all the domains at Network Solutions, Go Daddy, ENOM, and -- I mean, all the names under management the clients currently own, add the value of all those names together, you would find that that value was far larger than the value of the three registrars in question, okay? So now, whether those domains delete or not, you know, is something that remains. Will google.com delete? No. But if you looked at the value -- I'll pick on my good friends at Network Solutions again. If you looked at the value of the names that come out of Network Solutions in the last five or six years that have been deleted by their registrant, that value is very significant. It doesn't apply so much to the newer registrars such as Go Daddy that may have not the legacy portfolio that a Network Solutions does, but the older legacy registrars will have a significant value applied to them for the domains that are not renewed by clients over the years. Next screen, please. I close with the domain life cycle graphic again 'cause I figure this was where most of the questions come in, and if we could leave it on the screen as we take questions. So as I said, my job here was to try and provide you some insight as to what's actually happening in the real world. We can talk about the ICANN policies are, if you want, that apply to this, but I hope I've given you a bit of a snapshot into what's happening. Now, I've been very generalistic in a lot of my terms, and, you know, specifically so, to try and give you a broad sense of it, you know, individual registrars are doing different things, and many do, you know, great work at customer service in getting the domain back to that former registrant. So by no means am I trying to suggest that any registrar has done anything other than what is contractually obligated, and, in fact, many, many registrars, certainly most of the ones that attend these conferences go far beyond anything required contractually by ICANN to assist the registrant and the former registrants in getting their domain name back. But I wanted to try and give you a sense of what is actually happening in the real world and how this domain transfer process may not be what it was five to seven years ago. So I think I'll take questions; is that fair? >>MARIKA KONINGS: Thank you very much. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Yeah. Thank you very much, Rob. And first one quick question from me. Can we post your presentation on the working group Wiki? >>ROB HALL: Yes. That's fine. >>MARIKA KONINGS: I think that's probably a must for everyone joining this group that hasn't sat through this presentation. So Alan first with a clarification. I already have Tim. Any other people that want to be in the queue? Go ahead, Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Rob, as you pointed out, the definitions of registrant get very confusing at expiration time. And I tend to use the term the pre-expiration registrant, that is the one who owned it the day before he expired or before it expired. I assume it is the pre-expiration registrant who has the rights to redeem under the RPG if it is ever deleted. Is that correct? >>ROBERT HALL: No. Simply, no. When I've used the term "former registrant," that would be equivalent to your "pre-expiration registrant," if you will, through my presentation. And I'm being very blunt about the "no" for a reason. The RGP says the registrant at the time the domain is deleted is the only one who has the right to that domain name, to redeem the domain name out of the redemption grace period. So the only -- it's contractual. The only person who can redeem the registration out of the RGP is the registrant at the time the domain was deleted. In most cases now that is not the pre- expiration registrant. Now, that said, practically what happens -- so that's contractually what the RGP says and what ICANN contracts say. Practically what happens is you are correct. The pre-expiration registrant is practically the one that the registrant will go and get it for. So, if you are the pre-expiration registrant and the domain goes through this whole process and is deleted by the registrar and enters the redemption grace period and you go to the registrant and say, "I want my name back," then yes, the registrar will typically get the domain back for you. It may be interesting to note that the registrar could choose to get it back for anyone who asked because they are the registrant at the time of deletion. But practically, as a matter of practice, most registrars I know and certainly most that attend these meetings at ICANN would get the domain back on behalf of the pre- expiration registrant. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I assumed the process -- but I never actually tried to check -- that I thought the registry had to check who is redeeming it. So I assumed that just prior to deletion, they restored the original owner's name. >>ROBERT HALL: In fact, the registry doesn't check anything. >>ALAN GREENBERG: My mistake. >>ROBERT HALL: The actual mechanics of how the process works is the registrar at the time of redemption is obligated to warrant to the registry that they are redeeming this on behalf of the registrant at the time of deletion. So, practically, what happens the registrar -- it's a manual process actually, which frustrates many registrars because we have to go to the Web site and manually warrant that we are redeeming this domain on behalf of the registrant which is the registrant at the time of deletion. >>ALAN GREENBERG: So you redeem it for them. And then, out of the kindness of your heart for a small exchange of money, you transfer it back to the original registrant, effectively. >>ROBERT HALL: I don't think the money is any different regardless of who the registrant is at the time of deletion. But, practically, yes. So most registrars have a redemption fee that we actually contractually are obligated to have posted on our Web site, as we heard earlier today, that is applied. So whether it comes back to one registrant and gets sent back, I think, is irrelevant to the fee. The fee charged is a higher fee because there's a -- I believe it's a $40 fee from the registry to get it back out of the RGP. >>ALAN GREENBERG: No, I was just saying that, essentially, they use slight of hand to put it back where it should have been if we were back in the world we envisioned when the RGP was created. >>ROBERT HALL: I'm not sure there's slight of hand. That's a pejorative term, but -- >>ALAN GREENBERG: I'm an amateur magician. That's not a pejorative term. >>CHUCK GOMES: Can I comment on that, Alan? Having been one of the people that was involved when the RGP was established, there was specific intent with regard to the registry price that was established there. And I'll be very honest -- and Louis Touton was the ICANN staff person who worked on it at that time. We were very conscious of the possibility of gaming with regard to that process and were concerned about setting the price too low. So -- and you, of all people, would understand very well some of the games that could be played with regard to that particular process. If it was very low. So that was a conscious decision to try to minimize the gaming. I think that's probably been fairly successful in deterring that. Rob, I don't know if you agree with that or not. >>ROBERT HALL: I do. I think the higher price point has almost stopped the gaming of it. It certainly makes it more painful for a registrar that accidentally deletes. But at least we have a way to get it back. So most registrars take it like that. And, Chuck, you're doing yourself a disservice I think in pointing out that VeriSign has actually lowered their fee from the original fee of, I believe, of what the RGP was. It used to be twice as much, and you've now made it more economical for registrants to get their name back? >>CHUCK GOMES: You're talking about something that -- that I may not even be aware of. So -- >>ROBERT HALL: All right. The RGP fee originally was not -- >>CHUCK GOMES: Oh, you're talking about originally. I gotcha. I can explain that, too. >>ROBERT HALL: VeriSign lowered the price to try to -- trying to pat you on the back here, Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: Thanks, Rob. Appreciate that. We actually initially developed an estimate -- we actually invested quite a lot to make the changes to implement RGP. So we were allowed to charge a higher fee in a short-term to develop the investment costs - - to get a return on those relatively quickly and then reduced it once that happened. Thanks for pointing that out. Thanks. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Tim, you had a comment. >>TIM COLE: Thank you, Marika. Rob, as always, you do a great job of summarizing a lot of facts in very concise and visual way. This whole discussion about RGP, though, does -- I think there's one thing you said that needs to be clarified. Because it certainly could influence what this whole group considers going down the road. You kept referring to the RGP as something mandated by ICANN. The RGP is not a consensus policy. It's not in ICANN's contract. It's an optional thing that the registry can elect to do and put in its contract with its registrars. Now, it happens that VeriSign has elected to do it. But it's totally voluntary. >>ROBERT HALL: I think I -- >>TIM COLE: I want to make it clear that, if someone wants to make the RGP mandatory, they would have to go through a consensus process to do so. And that has not happened. >>ROBERT HALL: Perhaps you weren't here. I think I said that at the first. And I may have referred to it incorrectly throughout my presentation. It was not a consensus policy. >>TIM COLE: Right. But -- >>ROBERT HALL: I believe that every registry -- >>TIM COLE: You are distinguishing between the two RGPs. And you said that the RGP that's mandated by ICANN is one thing -- >>ROBERT HALL: Let me make the distinction clearer, if I can. The redemption grace period is something outside the registrar's control that is in the registry's control. Would that make it more clear? So the registries implement the redemption grace period, not the registrars. The registrar implements their registrar grace period or what's typically referred to as the first 30 days. That's completely in the control of registrars. The redemption grace period is a voluntary implementation by the registries. Now I should ask you a question: Are there any ICANN registries that have not voluntarily implemented? I don't know of any. But perhaps there are. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I don't think dot name has an RGP. I think there are a couple who don't. >>Of the gTLDs, dot name is the only one that doesn't. >>ROB HALL: Okay. >>CHUCK GOMES: Tim, if I could add something there, too, interestingly enough, even though it's not classified as a consensus policy -- and I've always kind of wondered about that myself -- I don't think there was any policy that we ever have established over the years that had the unanimous level of support that the RGP had at the time. >>TIM COLE: Which always surprised me as to why it wasn't a consensus policy. >>CHUCK GOMES: Me, too. >>TIM COLE: There was so much consensus. >>ROBERT HALL: As I recall, there may have been a debate about the picket fence. This was even in the time before we knew what a picket fence was or whether it was a picket fence of whether it fit into the contracts or not. But I gather it would be fairly easy to make it consensus policy now. But, as long as everybody's following it at the registry level, I don't see the need, frankly. I think you're absolutely right, though, Chuck, in that everybody wanted this. Registrars wanted it because we screw up and delete names by accident and have to go get them back. Registrants wanted it so they had more of a time frame when the domain wasn't in the zone, which was the big alerting factor. Because five days -- you know. I remember the old days where it was a pretty quick turnaround. Five days after you went on vacation, you came back the next week and your domain was in someone else's hands. >>ALAN GREENBERG: What making it a consensus policy would change is it would require all future gTLD registries to have it, and it would require registrars to offer it. >>ROBERT HALL: Registrars don't offer it, actually. It's a registry -- I won't call it a registry service. That's not the right term. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Pass it through to their registrants. I'm not sure what the right verb is. >>ROBERT HALL: I'm not sure I understand that comment. Because registries lock this domain down for 30 days. Registrars -- it's -- the only thing the registrar can go during that period is get it back. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Or not allow a customer to get it back. I mean, why they would prefer to simply let it die as opposed to taking money from the customer, I don't know. But I'm told there are some registrars -- >>ROBERT HALL: Your point is there's no obligation on the registrar to get the domain out of RGP. >>ALAN GREENBERG: That's correct. >>ROBERT HALL: That's an interesting point. You're right. I don't know of any that do. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I don't know why they wouldn't. It's a money- making venture for them, but -- >>ROBERT HALL: I guess it's theoretically possible. There's a question here, sir? >>CHRISTOPHER CROWTHER: It's more an observation. I'm trying to understand what the point of the RGP is today. Seems to be pretty redundant following the domain life cycle. >>ROBERT HALL: It was created before a lot of this happened. >>CHRISTOPHER CROWTHER: Fair enough. But, as it stands today, following the presentation, it's basically the domains that are going to be going through there are -- have very little value anyways. So given that there might be some subjective value to someone who wants to get a name back, but -- >>ROBERT HALL: I can answer it in a couple different ways. From a registrar's point of view, I think it's still very valuable. Because we do screw up. We do delete names by accident. These are typically hugely automated processes because we're dealing with thousands of domains a day. And the RGP allows a registrar to correct its mistakes. So, from a registrar, point of view we support the RGP and certainly do not want to see the redemption grace period gotten rid of. From a registrar point of view, the distinction that I think the RGP brings is that the domain does not resolve during that period of time. So all other periods of time -- and there may have to be changes to those or there may be suggested changes to those. I know that's what this working group is looking at. The domain still resolves and still works. So the RGP has the distinction of not working. But you could be quite right in fact that, typically, a domain of any value doesn't enter the RGP. So is it redundant? Maybe so. But all domains that delete before they become available to anyone else go through that process. And I would still support keeping the RGP in. I think the debate will actually focus on what happens pre-RGP as opposed to getting rid of the RGP. Because I've heard nothing to suggest that we should do away with the RGP or it's not useful. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Essentially, if you have a boring enough domain name that you don't notice is not working or keeps on working during the various post-expiration periods, the RGP gives you a chance of getting it back. >>CHRISTOPHER CROWTHER: I see. >>ALAN GREENBERG: If it had value, chances are it was sold to someone and probably too late. If, for instance, you're only using the name for e-mail, there appear to be some cases where in the post- expiration date e-mails still resolves even though the web address doesn't. So this is -- maybe be the first notification you get of that. >>ROBERT HALL: Chuck. >>CHUCK GOMES: It would be an interesting study to do. Maybe sometime, Tim, if you guys want to tackle it. But the volume of redemption grace period or just redemptions of names is still quite high. So I would guess -- and I don't have any data to support this -- that plenty of those are registrant errors and not just registrar errors. So I think it's probably a reasonable assumption that it's still a very valuable service. >>ROBERT HALL: I think that's true. I would agree with that. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Any other questions? The microphone is -- the standing microphone is working. >>TIM CHEN: Hi, Tim Chen from Domain Tools. >>ROBERT HALL: Thank you, Tim, for your data from earlier. >>TIM CHEN: I'll charge you later. But this is the first time -- so I just wanted to thank you for the presentation -- that I've ever been able to understand the process. I've been in the domain business on kind of the principal side for about two or three years now. And I never actually understood how the drought market worked in detail. So thank you very much. I'm going to go get this presentation when it's over. I have two basic questions. As I've said all week, this is the first time I've been here. This is pretty basic. The first is: Is there any requirement to notify the registrant that their domain is expiring in the agreements the registrars have? >>ROBERT HALL: Yes. >>TIM CHEN: There is. Okay. >>ROBERT HALL: Let me speak to that. I think it was in her presentation. >>MARIKA KONINGS: When it states in the RAA, there's an obligation to send at least two notices prior to expiration. >>ALAN GREENBERG: By e-mail. >>ROBERT HALL: The RAA I don't think it specifies the method. I think it says that we're required to send two notices prior to expiration of the domain name. Most would send that by e-mail. I know some registrars do a phone, an automated phone system now that says, "Hey, your domain is about to expire," leaves messages on some voice mails. Some fax. Some offer the service of send it regular mail, like a paper reminder type thing. So it depends on the registrar you choose. It's one of the services different levels of registrars offer. >>TIM CHEN: Thank you. The second question was on the chart with all the different arrows on it -- when in the various of those periods, the grace period, I think is the one I'm focused on. >>ROBERT HALL: That one? >>TIM CHEN: Yeah, that's good. When in the grace period or in this process does the registrar have to pay to the registry the $6.42 fee? Is there a deadline? >>ROBERT HALL: No. Sorry. I should have been more clear about that. On the expiry date, the registry auto renews the domain for another year. So the registry pushes the registrar -- the date out and charges the registrar the fee at that point. So on the expiry date, the registrar is charged automatically the $6.42 fee, and it gets pushed out. So the registration automatically renews. The registrar then has 45 days to delete the domain and get that fee back from the registry. So registrars keep large letters of credit, as you can well imagine. Large registries, Go Daddy or ENOM, would have to keep in the registry accounts a fair amount of money to renew these domains and keep them for that 45-day period. That pressure -- that financial pressure might be why some registrars will delete them on day 1 because they get the money back instantly. So the registries give it back to the registrar and drop it back into the account right away. But, essentially, the registrars pay for that renewal. And that's part of the argument, I think, registrars will make is, "I've paid for that renewal. Not the former registrant. I should be allowed to change the registrant and do what I want with that domain because it's now -- essentially, I'm the one paying for it, not anyone else." But, essentially, that does get renewed. If I go to my -- if you go two or three screens forward, I think, sorry, forward, keep going, keep going. There. That one. If you look at the WHOIS during expiry, this -- isn't going to be a very good example, actually. But, essentially, the record expires on the 13th of February 2007. Is the -- can you go one more screen, sorry. You'll see the record expires on the 13th of February, 2008, is the new registrant. So, essentially, this one is of the most confusing things for registrants is, if you go and look at the -- I'm sorry, I don't have the snapshot of the registry WHOIS. But, if you go and look at a domain that's in that 45-day window -- let me put it a different way. You will never find a record in the WHOIS of a domain that has expired in the past. So I'll use VeriSign, since Chuck's in the room, as an example. You will never see this domain expired on a domain that is in the past from the current date. Because the domain is always auto renewed out a year. So, as soon as you get to the expiry date, the expiry date changes to a year from now. So domain that expired yesterday, for example, will have the expiry date changed to 2010 yesterday. So -- and that's something that confuses registrants often. Because they go and do a WHOIS. And the registrar WHOIS may show the correct date, as Network Solutions did. So, if you go back a screen Network Solutions showed that here February 13th, 2007, is when the record expired in their database. The registry WHOIS actually would have shown February 2008, as you saw on the next screen. So it's something registrars have to educate their clients on. And we spend a lot of time doing that. Because it looks like a domain never actually expires. It's always an expiry date in the future. So we get a lot of calls from registrants saying, "Well, wait, my domain doesn't expire until 2008." And what they don't understand is the registrar and registry have auto renewed it. And now it's in this phase where it can be deleted. So I know that causes some registrant confusion, but I think most registrars are pretty adept at handling it. Does that answer your question? >>CHRISTOPHER CROWTHER: Yes, thank you. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Michael, do you have your hand up? >>MICHAEL YOUNG: Yeah. I was actually going to state a little bit about the auto renew grace period itself. Its original intention was to -- Chuck would know this better than I would probably. But its original intention was to help registrars as well. Because, you know, predating that, there was nothing. There was expiry. And registries and registrars were looking for a way to give a period of time for the registrar to react to the situation and effectively communicate with their customer. So that's how the auto renew came about. That was a first step in this process to actually deal with those situations. And, when we first introduced RGP, that's primarily how auto renew was still being used, not in kind of a more speculative way that we seem to be using it today. >>ROBERT HALL: I would agree. In fact, we deal with many country code registries not under the ICANN realm, if you will, that do it differently, that don't have auto renew. And it's quite painful. It actually puts more burden on the registrar to be correct. I know that sounds crazy. But, if we forget to send a renewal command to the dot ca registry, for example, for Canada, the domain stops working on expiry and goes right into the ca version of redemption grace period. So I prefer the VeriSign -- I guess they pioneered it, so I'll give kudos to VeriSign -- the auto-renew period where domains don't just stop working on expiry. It gives the registrar some time to figure out what should be done. >>CHUCK GOMES: Yeah. And it gets really messy when those things happen. So that grace period really avoids a lot of messiness from the registrants point of view, the registrar's point of view, as well. So - - and so a lot of times we kind of take that for granted now. But we avoid a lot of that. >>ROBERT HALL: Yes, we're certainly thankful for it. We have to pay much greater attention to detail in the non-- I know that sounds crazy. But you would argue the com registry is the one that's most valuable. But I would say it happens more often that a domain goes dark and makes headlines in registries that don't auto renew than those that do. And that's a mess for us all. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Are there any other questions for Rob on the domain name life cycle? >>ALAN GREENBERG: If I understand correctly, in a more innocent day before all these interesting things started happening, if my domain expired three days ago, a dot com, if I looked at it at the WHOIS now, it would actually say I still own it and it doesn't expire for almost a year? Is that correct? Again, in the more innocent age before domains were taken over. >>ROBERT HALL: I think that's mostly correct. So, if your domain expired -- let's take back in the early 2000s. If your domain expired, two things would have happened. Some registrars did delete right away. There was no point in keeping it in the 45 days. Once you had the redemption grace period in place, you could get it back. You could charge a larger fee for getting it back. So why not get rid of it? And you got your $6 back from the registry or whatever the registry fee was you got it back immediately into your registrar account. So -- but barring it being deleted in those three days, the only difference might be that the domain didn't resolve. So there was a practice of a lot of registrars to keep it for the 45 days but make it not resolve, to give you the warning, if you will, that it didn't work or to put up a page that said -- you know, I remember -- I think it was Network Solutions pioneered the putting up of a page that said, "This domain has expired. Click here to renew." And anyone can click here and renew. Anyone that wanted to pay for that domain could renew it on behalf of the -- the registrant didn't change. But it actually was something registrars -- I remember looking at -- >>ALAN GREENBERG: Take the money from anyone. >>ROBERT HALL: We implemented it. Because, when the domains stop working, there's a panic to get it going as fast as you can. And why -- the IT guy is out on vacation. You don't have the right passwords to get into the account. Why not let anyone renew it? So I think you'll find a lot of registrars now will renew a domain. We have a quick renew on our sites that say go ahead and renew it. We're not changing ownership or anything. We're letting anyone pay for it. Of course, that caused problems with the domains and UDRP. And it's locked and the complainant wants to renew it and everything else. But, essentially, most registrars will try to facilitate a renewal to get the domain working and then figure out what happened, as opposed to trying to keep it on hold and not working. Because a domain not resolving hurts everybody involved. So -- >>MARIKA KONINGS: Are there any other questions for Rob? Otherwise, we're going to switch to the charter questions. Let me just pull those up. Actually, Jeff, go ahead. >>JEFF ECKHAUS: Quick question. I forget which slide it was. You stated that some registrars from their revenue that you assume might come from other areas. Do you think then -- >>ROBERT HALL: I'm sorry. Say that again. >>JEFF ECKHAUS: You said for some registrars the value of their domain portfolio or other activity might have exceeded -- this was your assumption -- might have exceeded the renew from registration. You stated that in one of your slides. Do you think then, following that same line of thinking, do you think that that revenue from those other areas has been able to -- has been part of the -- or the main piece pushing prices down from -- as Alan said, to innocent times when it was, I guess, $35 or $50 for a domain? That being able to -- these activities might have or may subsidize the registrations and push the registrations down to, you know, the 7.49 or 7.99. I saw on Go Daddy's site it was 1.99 today. Do you think that might be a reason pushing the prices down and benefiting consumers. >>ROBERT HALL: I'd say hypothetically, yes. So I can't comment on what happens inside other registrars' board rooms and why they set the pricing. And, as a registrar, I don't think I should be. But are you asking if it's possible a registrar uses revenues from other sources to offset registration costs? Yes. Is it possible a registrar could offer free renewals to someone or a dollar renewal to someone in order to get valuable domains into their registrar hoping that they delete sometime in the future? Yes, I guess that's one business model a registrar could take. I haven't seen it yet, though. And I'm not sure I would. But it's interesting to speculate on that. But it is certainly possible that a company or a registrar might offer a discount or, you know, offsetting revenue -- what do they call it? Loss leader of a domain -- because it's making money somewhere else. Wal-Mart kind of pioneered that industry of coming in and buying a DVD. And, hopefully, you get milk and everything else that's more expensive and everything else. >>BARRY SHEIN: I don't know if somebody mentioned this, but I'm pretty sure Go Daddy's $1.99 is prerequisite of having a Web site with them for 20 bucks a month or something like that. >>ROBERT HALL: I'm sorry. It's possible. >>BARRY SHEIN: I'm 99% sure. >>ROBERT HALL: That would make Jeff's exact point is that often times registrars are able to reduce prices because revenues come in from other sources such as hosting. It's quite possible the secondary market or after market is leading to lower prices. So I think, hypothetically, that's quite possible. >>ALAN GREENBERG: There's a lot of Web hosters who offer a free domain name. It's the same price for the Web hosting whether you need a name or not. >>ROBERT HALL: Exactly. But my comment, Jeff, at the time was more on the -- you know, no one's done it yet. And I don't really see them doing it. But it -- it's possible that, you know, a registrar might find more value in not renewing names. Now, they'd instantly lose all their clients, you know. I think word would get out pretty quickly. But, if a registrar didn't -- on day one after expiry took the name and gave the former registrant no chance to renew -- to redeem the name, it's possible they might find short-term gain, but certainly not long- term gain. And I don't think anyone will ever do it. And I think most registrars are responsible enough not to do it. But, contractually, I think it's probably possible. Is that fair? >>MARIKA KONINGS: So now to make the decision a little bit broader, I've put up the charter questions. So these are the questions that the working group will be asked to answer. So I think we should probably just open up the floor. And anyone who wants to share thoughts, ideas, suggestions on these different issues will be welcome to do so now. Or questions you think this group should be looking at in order to be a able to address these issues. >>JEFF ECKHAUS: I was looking at the charter earlier. And on the first one, whether -- unless maybe I missed this. I think one of the things for the working group would be helpful is to draw or to show parallels or other industries or other areas where you have a service contract for a specified period of time, we're able to renew or go back to that. Or maybe you're not. I don't know the answer -- to that -- to that same service without any additional fees or for the same fees. I don't know what the answer is. But I think that would probably be helpful for the first -- for showing, I guess, how domains relate to other services and what other companies do besides as -- you know, because we all have different business models here but to see what parallels in other industries. I don't know if that's possible, but I think it would be helpful. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I was going to answer that. There certainly are parallels. And I don't think anyone said that it has to be, for instance, at the same price as it would have been. That's the business model the registrar has. I've been a member of American Airlines Admiral's club for years. If I renew before the expiration, it's one price. If I renew after the expiration, it's a different price. >>MASON COLE: I think I may have asked this before. But has it been contemplated as part of the charter or at any point a quantification of potential harm that a catastrophic loss of a name either -- you know, whether or not that harm has been quantified as it exists in the market today or may be quantified or may be in existence in the market in the future? In other words, is there -- you know, the whole reason for this proposed policy is to prevent unintended loss of a domain name. So how many domain names are lost unintentionally and how much damage is that causing? >>MARIKA KONINGS: Is it something, for example, where the registrar constituency could help to provide data of complaints they have related to this issue? >>MASON COLE: I think, yes. I think registrars would be glad to provide whatever information they can, within the bounds of customer privacy, to be able to do that. I don't want to speak for Rob or Jeff or any other registrar in the room, but -- yeah. I mean, if that's doable. I see a lot of this based on assumptions or things that might happen and not on evidence of things that have happened. >>MARIKA KONINGS: James? Alan? You have to go up to the mic. That one's working. >>JAMES BLADEL: This wasn't a response. I was going to wait for Mason and Alan. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Hopefully, with cooperation from registrars, registries, we can try to quantify the number of occurrences to quantify the value. I don't see how the registrars, registries have that information. We can certainly give anecdotal cases, but I don't think we can give the cumulative. >>MASON COLE: And it may not even be monetary value. But I'm hoping for something beyond the anecdotal. If there's a demonstrated pattern of a problem, that's what I'm hoping to see. But I haven't seen that. I've seen statements that say this might happen or it could happen. But I haven't seen this has happened consistently to the point where it's causes a problem for registrants. That's my issue. >>ROB HALL: If I can just add, I think I would agree with Mason that most registrars would be happy to participate in this because we're not -- I certainly don't know if the data exist, I think the data exists, but it may not prove that there's a problem. >>MASON COLE: Yeah. And I will tell you, as a registrar and as a secondary market service operator, I mean, I can tell you that the number of times that you have to go back and undo a transaction for a registrant that never meant to let a domain name go is minuscule, at least in our experience. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Then in that case we're not going to do much to fix the problem, if there's not much of a problem. >>MASON COLE: Yeah, but that's precisely my point, it's not much of a problem, so why are we doing this? >>MARIKA KONINGS: I think it's something we can verify as well if we at ICANN get many complaints related to these areas. >>MASON COLE: I'm cognizant of the fact that people make mistakes, registrants unintentionally let a name go, those are very important to them, registrants on occasion make mistakes, but also it's important to realize that registrars do everything they can to go back and solve the problems for customers because our relationships with our customers are more important in the long run than a few dollars that we can make on the sale of a name. So it's more important for us to keep satisfied customers -- there's 945, I think, accredited registrars in the world now. You know, that's a lot of competition out there. We need all the customers we can get. And we don't want to irritate them by mistreating one of their names in a way that they don't anticipate. >>JAMES BLADEL: Thank you. James Bladel, Go Daddy. And just on your last point, Mason, I think you're absolutely right, the cost to acquire a new customer can be pretty high and it would certainly have to be offset by any of these other resell opportunities. But I intend to participate in the working group. I wanted to touch on something that Rob brought up in his presentation. And perhaps if it can be framed or wordsmithed better than I'm going to do right now from the hip, then maybe we can get it into the charter questions. But it's really a discussion relative of the balancing of the rights, if you will, between the pre-expiry registrant and the post-expiry registrant, who I'm assuming at that time also has rights under ICANN policies and procedures, and how that is balanced or how that balance shifts during different milestones of this process, whether it's expiration or different milestone cutoffs and just really taking a look at those two as separate entities, I'm assuming they're separate entities in most cases, and balancing them out. And then the final thing I wanted to just throw out there is we talk about notification in, it looks like, two questions, notification and opportunity or adequate opportunities to renew. It's very common and, you know, I've done it myself, so, you know, it -- but it is something that we see very frequently where the individual registrant will associate the admin technical and billing contact and the registrant e- mail address with the domain name that is actually the domain that is being registered. So if it actually goes past one of these milestones and fails to resolve or an associated service such as a free e-mail account is terminated at that expiration date, then how could someone get all these communications? It's this kind of chicken-and-egg scenario. So one simple question that we could put up there is whether or not, you know, through education or through policy or through technical needs, registries and registrars could say, look, if you've got jamesbladel.com, the admin contact e-mail cannot be @jamesbladel.com, it will be chasing its tail, whether something like that can be established to ensure the delivery of those notifications. Thank you, sorry for arriving late. >>ROB HALL: If I can respond. James, you've hit the nail on the head. You've asked what the difference between pre- and post- registrant rights are, and there's no such thing in ICANN, there's registrant rights. So the key to keep in mind through any of these discussions of any time period is who is the registrant at any given time, 'cause we always talk about what the registrant rights are, not how we change registrants or that registrants may change quickly over a period of time, it's always the current registrant. So I think that's the key that's often the misconception when we talk about these things is, you know, you have to keep in mind at any given period of time who is the registrant of that domain. Not who was the registrant, who is the registrant. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Under the policy as it stands today. >>ROB HALL: Yes. I know of no ICANN policy that refers to anyone other than the registrant. In other words, I know of no ICANN policy that talks about former registrants or preregistrants, it's always "the registrant." >>MARIKA KONINGS: I think it talks about the registered name holder, not -- >>ROB HALL: Sure, yeah, so, which we, I think, probably often refer to as the registrant. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Without predicting outcome, maybe that's what comes out of this is defining those new terms, maybe not. >>ROB HALL: Perhaps. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Any more comments, suggestions? I mean, maybe, I don't know, as we're talking about possible outcomes, I mean, I know Alan has had a lot of discussion on this and then thought this through, like if it would be only up to you or to ALAC to decide, what would you change, what would be the outcome of this process? And others will have the same opportunity to give an answer to that. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I think depending on who you talk to, you'd get different answers. From my perspective at the very least, and I would like to see somewhat more, but at the very least, I want a domain to -- a domain and -- domain to stop resolving so despite the fact that I forgot to change my e-mail address two years ago when I changed ISPs, I get some sort of notification assuming the Web site is at all active and being used. And I want a reasonable amount of time in which to notice that, get the domain name back at a predictable price, predictable, that is preferably the one that was on the Web site, on the registrar's Web site when I registered it, or last week or something like that. And one can, then, talk about the details of, you know, what happens to the page in between. Is it monetized, is there a notice on it saying "registrant click here." We can debate all of that. >>ROB HALL: Sorry, wait. You said you wanted the domain to stop resolving. There's no in-between page. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I want it to stop resolving to the original Web site. >>ROB HALL: Okay, so you still -- >>ALAN GREENBERG: I want someone to notice that something happened. I don't want to find out that for 45 days it keeps on pointing to my Web site, I'm oblivious of the fact that I've now gotten 45 days of free service and then it disappears overnight with no chance of getting it back. >>ROB HALL: I know of no registrar in the world that does that. So I know of no registrar that allows the domain to keep resolving as it is -- do you, Jeff -- >>JEFF ECKHAUS: Honestly, I don't either, but I wouldn't say there are no registrars. >>ROB HALL: It's not impossible, but -- >>JEFF ECKHAUS: As Mason said, there's over 900 and something, so I don't know the business model of everyone, so I'm not going to make that statement. There might be, I don't know the answer to that. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I believe Tim said Go Daddy leaves it resolving for something like 12 days. >>ROB HALL: Right, but that -- >>ALAN GREENBERG: That's not nasty, they're doing it to help, but I personally don't think that helps. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Did you have a comment, James? >>ALAN GREENBERG: And, I'm sorry -- >>ROB HALL: And to be clear -- >>ALAN GREENBERG: Sorry. And the other half is something has to be done with e-mail. I'm not quite sure what the right words on. >>ROB HALL: Sorry. To be clear, I don't think I said they leave it resolving for 12 days, I said they don't change the registrant until the 12-day period. I don't know what happens the day -- maybe James can answer that. >>JAMES BLADEL: Say that question again -- >>ROB HALL: Sorry, on expiry -- we talked a bit about Go Daddy earlier -- on expiry, the registrant -- after the expiry date, the registrant doesn't change in Go Daddy until 12 days in, is what I've been told by Tim. What happens to the Web site during those 12 days, I don't know. It was never discussed. I've never made any claims, so -- >>JAMES BLADEL: I think it may go to a place holder site. >>ROB HALL: It does, okay. >>JAMES BLADEL: Fairly soon after expiry. But I'd have to look, Rob, I'm sorry. >>ROB HALL: Fair enough. So I think what you'll see in the industry is the vast majority of registrars do make it resolve somewhere else to give the client a heads up 'cause the last thing we want is a client to be screaming at us down the road saying, "Hey, I didn't realize this, it just went poof." But even if it does, it still has to go through the 30-day redemption grace period, where it's not in the zone, so there's no chance of it resolving to anything. >>ALAN GREENBERG: Well, that's assuming it gets deleted. >>ROB HALL: Fair enough. >>ALAN GREENBERG: And if the name is a nice-sounding name, it won't. To summarize on what I expect for registrars who are acting reasonably honorably, there may be absolutely -- >>MASON COLE: I'm sorry, Alan, what does that mean? [ Laughter ] >>ALAN GREENBERG: Let me finish. I would suspect that nothing would have to be done, if right now, on the day of expiration, you change it to a monetized page, but with a note on the top saying if you're the registrant, click here, or something equivalent to that. >>ROB HALL: Keeping in mind that the registrant now is -- sorry. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I'm not playing -- if you were the registrant five days ago -- I'm not trying to play semantics. >>ROB HALL: I don't mean to keep picking on you. >>ALAN GREENBERG: No, no, no, okay -- if you were the -- >>ROB HALL: Sorry, I mean to be doing this to point out that these terms are confusing to people, and we need to make sure we're talking in the same languages about this because if we use terms like if you're the registrant, then you end up back in the same situation you have now which is you won't foresee that the registrant is not who you think it is, so I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm trying to do the opposite, actually. >>ALAN GREENBERG: If you were on any of the conference calls leading up to this, one of the things I've said is one of the first things we need to do is carefully define these terms so that when we're talking, we're not -- we're understanding. I mean, I've also been told by ICANN legal counsel that even if you don't change the name of the registrant, since it expired, he's not the registrant anymore. Okay, so -- and regardless, we need to define these terms carefully, and if I'm using the wrong term right now try to forgive me. >>CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: (Speaker off microphone). >>ALAN GREENBERG: Thank you. >>ROB HALL: Sorry, it wasn't a matter to try and punish you or forgive you, it's -- >>ALAN GREENBERG: No, no. I'm talking about the registrant prior to expiration. Okay. The Web site should stop resolving, there should be an obvious notice that it has expired, and what someone should do to fix that problem, and there should be a known, that is, the registrant announces it well ahead of time, how long it will stay in that state and what the price will be to get back. >>ROB HALL: I have a question. >>ALAN GREENBERG: That's what I mean by "reasonable." In other words, predictable situation, that someone who inadvertently loses the domain name can recover it. >>ROB HALL: If I can just -- >>MARIKA KONINGS: James and -- >>JAMES BLADEL: Alan, I think there's some interesting -- it's not on? I guess I need to aim at it, right? So there's some interesting things that we can discuss, and I look forward to all of these charter questions. I'd like to take a look at self-referential domain names, you know, as we discussed a moment ago, and that could be a cause. I'd also like to see some obligations or milestones on the part of the registrant that will help registrars determine what names are truly abandoned -- sorry -- expired versus those names that are surrendered or abandoned. Because I think that there's quite a few that it's like, yeah, I'm not using that name, I can't remember why I registered it, and I'm just going to let it expire. If we were to increase our scrutiny, care, and investigation of these on a case-by-case basis, we certainly couldn't -- it would be nice to know that after a certain date, if the registrant hasn't done X, Y or Z that we just move on. And finally, I don't think that any conversation that involves, I'm going to say -- I'm going to butcher this, so I'm just going to out with it, any conversation that involves inserting pricing into a policy is going to go -- it's DOA. I mean, I can be a registrar and I could say, you know, $10,000 or $50,000, I'm not going to have any customers, but, I mean, it's my right to set that price at whatever I want. The pricing, I think, between registries and registrars for these services, even the AGP, is established in a lot of those agreements, but from there downstream or to registrar -- registrants or resellers I think is -- you know, we need to take into account there's just this wide spectrum of business models and we really shouldn't engage in those kinds of discussions, my opinion. >>ALAN GREENBERG: I'm confused. I don't think anyone said that ICANN and the policies should specify what the price would be. When I say "predictable," I mean for any given registrar, registrar that I'm dealing with, it should be published and they should document it so I know ahead of time what it's going to be. >>JAMES BLADEL: Okay, so less of a number -- >>ALAN GREENBERG: You can say whatever business model you want to. >>JAMES BLADEL: $6 a year and $10 million if you have to get it out of redeposition. Okay. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Jeff. >>JEFF ECKHAUS: I just wanted to comment -- Alan, I think what your wish list is is -- I think it's fair, and I think, actually, that is in place at the moment that -- for it -- that registrars have a -- whichever previous registrants, whoever it was you want to call it has a reasonable amount of time to renew that domain, I think that's there now, and I think that there have been -- there may -- I won't say there have been, sorry, there may be some outlier cases where this has happened. I'd love to see the evidence on this as we go forward on this working group versus the hypotheticals because I believe that all the scenarios that you've asked for I think are in effect right now, and they may need to be cleared up a little, but I think changes of policy -- I don't know what changes of policy would bring that in, would I guess bring in what you want unless our definition of what a reasonable amount of time may be differentiated, I don't know about that. >>ALAN GREENBERG: There's actually no question we're talking about the outliers. Absolutely no question at all. And many of them, which is why I had the little exchange I did earlier in the session, many of them resellers. >>JEFF ECKHAUS: So my quick question, then, is on -- you know, I'm forgetting what the total number of domains in the domain space is, but let's say on the gTLDs it's somewhere around 100 million domains. >>MASON COLE: 100 million. >>JEFF ECKHAUS: say 100 million domains. And we have, let's say, these outliers, I'd like to see the evidence of, but if there are -- because I know, and as Mason said, as somebody who is involved in these secondary markets, for the number of times a -- original, previous, whatever registrant has come in and said, "Oh, we need to get the domain back," that may be maybe one time a year or maybe twice, and on the number of complaints, so I'm just trying to figure out that at times if we have 100 million domains, each are at -- on an average term of 1.1, 1.2 years, I don't know, the registries could probably give that information, that we're willing to make wholesale changes for 10 to 15 people or 10 to 15 domains out of 100 million, I'm not sure if -- is that the right thing to do, I don't know the answer to that. But to me, I don't think so for that small number, if people can't operate within the guidelines that we have for those outliers. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Any other comments, questions, suggestions? No? Then I would just invite you all to join the working group and continue this discussion in the weeks and months that will follow and thank you all very much for coming and participating. [ Applause ]