Hi, Thomas wrote:
<< I hope we can agree that in such a situation, the *only* useful fee information (e.g. about the cost for a transfer of an affected domain) is the *actual* fee attached to the existing domain object, and not the *theoretical* (lower) fee that would be charged if the same name was recreated in the system that was reconfigured since the domain was created, no? >> Thomas - as a registrar that might be able to register/renew/transfer the domain, I only care what the domain would cost for be to perform those actions at the current time or a phase in the future. I'm not concerned with the cost in the past as I have already been charged for that cost and I should have logging or other form of documentation to prove it. Thanks, Jody Kolker 319-294-3933 (office) 319-329-9805 (mobile) Please contact my direct supervisor Charles Beadnall (cbeadn...@godaddy.com) with any feedback. This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. -----Original Message----- From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Corte Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:32 AM To: regext@ietf.org Cc: supp...@tango-rs.com Subject: Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees Hello, On 2017-03-29 23:48, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote: >> Let me be clear that the fee information for an existing domain name >> is based strictly off the fee tables and not looking at the fee and >> credit information of the existing domain itself. > > Interesting point. Of course, for the sake of simplicity, i'm with > you. However, I *could* think of situations where renewal of an > *existing* domain name has a different price compared to the renewal > price if said domain was deleted and picked up on a (now different, > lower) price class. > > But i don't want to go there. Unfortunately, sometimes real life goes where engineers would rather not go. In one of our TLDs, we'll soon face a situation where exactly this happens - some "legacy" premium domain names will retain a higher price - also for future (auto-)renewals and transfers - compared to newly created premium names (this approach was not my choice, but couldn't be helped). Deleting and recreating such a domain would save the registrar money, however this would cause the name to go on hold for at least 30 days during the RGP. I hope we can agree that in such a situation, the *only* useful fee information (e.g. about the cost for a transfer of an affected domain) is the *actual* fee attached to the existing domain object, and not the *theoretical* (lower) fee that would be charged if the same name was recreated in the system that was reconfigured since the domain was created, no? Best regards, Thomas -- TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES® is a product of: Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH Technologiepark Phone: +49 231 9703-222 Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 D-44227 Dortmund E-Mail: supp...@tango-rs.com Germany _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
