To the average registrant, OpenSRS services obtained through an RSP do not
appear to be much different than what they would get from a retail
registrar. So I think renewals and RSP-to-RSP transfers at OpenSRS should
closely mimic renewals and registrar transfers at other registrars. This
would minimize confusion for all concerned. A registrant can't renew an NSI
domain name at register.com without transferring it there, and can't
transfer it there without adding a year.
This would also clear up the contractual uncertainty which would occur when
a registration is renewed at an RSP other than the one who bound the
registrant to the registration agreement. In such a case, is the original
RSP still bound to the contract, even though additional years have been
added somewhere else? An official change of RSP, which would include a new
registration agreement, would end the original contract as it establishes
the new one.
Also, there should be some compensation to OpenSRS for processing the change
of RSP, and a disincentive to changing RSP's 100 times per year just to be a
pain.
I can't imagine why anyone would object to being required to add a year to
change RSP's.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Allan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 4:49 PM
Subject: RE: renewals
> At 10:37 PM 1/5/01 +0100, A. I. Sinclair wrote:
> >It is not a matter of trying to own customers, they (registrants) will
> >always have choice.
> >
> >My point being a transfer between RSPs should always automatically
initiate
> >a renewal
>
> Interesting... I thought people would see this as restrictive. This policy
> would be good for us (force renewals when registrants only wanted to
switch
> RSPs) - but, again, it does not seem that registrant friendly. I, as
usual,
> tend to lean towards being registrant friendly (which is ultimately RSP
> friendly).
>
> >and never the other way round.
>
> This has been covered. :)
>
> sA
> Scott Allan
> Director OpenSRS
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
