Transitioning from Direct Bill to Indirect Reseller
I am sharing our experience regarding transition from DB to IR started 4 months ago to understand the better approach to manage our partner centers in the future. We started transitioning from Direct Bill to Indirect Reseller in November 2025. We currently have: one PGA with two different associated CSP PLAs: Direct Bill PLA and Indirect Reseller PLA. We operate with two different Partner Centers: "first" PC used for the PGA and the Direct Bill PLA "second" used for the Indirect Reseller PLA At the moment, everything is working correctly, as we are actively transferring customers from the Direct Bill model to the Indirect Reseller model, Incentives for the Indirect Reseller (PLA IR) are being received correctly, designations are managed under the PGA tenant, ecc. Regarding TTM, we exceed the 1M‑dollar requirement, but only at the PGA level, as it currently includes both DB and IR revenue. Do you know whether Microsoft requires the 1M‑dollar threshold to be met at the PGA level by combining DB and IR revenue, or if only DB revenue counts for maintaining Direct Bill status? Our other question concerns the end of the customers migration, considering that the Direct Bill PLA will eventually become restricted or revoked. Whether it is recommended to continue using two separate Partner Centers, first for Membership, Incentives, Designations, Earnings, and overall partner management and the second exclusively for CSP Tier-2 customer management. Or whether you suggest alternative or better scenarios for managing the Partner Center structure once the transition is fully completed. Tks for feedback and information. FabrizioBusiness account vetting
Hello, My business account was already fully vetted and suddenly it went again to "Non-compliant". I've opened a support ticket a month ago (#2602260040002250) but so far I only got generic "we are looking into it" replies. This is now severely impacting my business because I can't publish my product on the Microsoft Store, which means I'm actively losing revenue. Can someone please look into it and tell me at least what the status is and a rough timeline for the solution? If no solution can be found any time soon, I'll have to move away from the Microsoft Store and find other means of distribution. Thank you and kind regards, Martin
Microsoft runs on trust - renewal blocked – order fails before payment (error 715-123160)
Hi, My context is the following, I have a US based LLC because my work is centered around Dynamics 365F&O and my customers are not in Colombia, but in the US. I am an ISV and have a marketplace offer in AppSource. I am an SMB. I can survive thanks to my consulting income. I'm trying to sell my ISVs as an MS partner but I haven't been able to land a deal yet. But I run my business from Colombia. But I have US Banks, US Customers, US Invoices, etc. This is a completely legal and compliant setup. I made the mistake when I enrolled as a Microsoft Partner of giving my US details instead of my Colombian details. I thought it made perfect sense, I had no idea I would be flagged for this. I have had problems with my partner center ever since, I can't get approved as a Developer. When I try to renew my Partner Success Core Benefits I get this: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/compliance/integrityIf you require further information please https://partner.microsoft.com/partner/support with reference number: XXX-XXXXX and transaction ID: XXXX. I opened up a support ticket, because my renewal is up. And at the very end of a week of back and forth I get this: Microsoft runs on trust, and therefore we engage in a rigorous set of evaluation and certification processes across third party individuals and organizations. As a result of our internal processes, we are unable to proceed with your request. Please note that this decision cannot be changed by opening a new support case. Thank you for your understanding What can I do? I know other people are facing the same issue.URGENT: Blocked from Partner Center Enrollment ("Runs on trust") - Support portals inaccessible
Hello Microsoft Partner Community Team, I am urgently seeking assistance with an automated enrollment block. We are trying to register our business, Connect In Cloud Ltd (UK Companies House: 09550508), for the Microsoft AI Cloud Partner Program, but we have triggered the "Microsoft runs on trust" security block. I am completely unable to raise a standard support ticket because my Partner Center dashboard shows no active workspaces, meaning the support form will not allow me to submit a request. Furthermore, the standard business phone support lines drop the call after instructing me to use the broken portal. I need a moderator to please escalate this directly to the Vetting and Enrollment team so I can provide my business documentation, verify my identity, and have this block cleared. Here are my exact error details from the blocked screen: Error: Microsoft runs on trust... your request was blocked. Reference Number: 715-123160 Transaction ID: 4b89b272-50fe-4f37-8f5f-15f539cbaed0 Correlation ID: f13ebdd3-5d9d-4b45-a31d-0049e3489a11 Thank you in advance for your help in getting an internal support ticket opened for us
URGENT: CSP Direct Bill Termination due to Revenue Discrepancy / Visibility Gap Support Exhausted
We’re currently working through a CSP Direct Bill eligibility review and have run into a discrepancy that we’re hoping other partners may have experience with. Our organization has been operating under CSP Direct Bill and, based on Partner Center indicators and prior guidance from Microsoft, we believed we were meeting the ~$1M TTM revenue requirement. However, we were recently informed by Microsoft that our Direct Bill revenue is being calculated at approximately $892K, below the threshold. The key issue appears to be related to revenue classification: Microsoft indicated that some of our revenue may be attributed to CSP Indirect Reseller (IR), even though we do not actively transact through a distributor. All licensing is billed directly by Microsoft, and we can provide invoices to support this. We’ve also been told that when tenants are associated with both Direct Bill and Indirect models, the 12-month revenue breakdown is not visible in Partner Center. Microsoft has acknowledged that this visibility gap exists and that partners cannot currently see the same classification used internally. Our case is currently under review with Microsoft, but we’re trying to better understand: Has anyone encountered a situation where tenants were classified as indirect without actively selling through a distributor? Are there any reliable ways to identify which customers or subscriptions may be tagged as indirect? Has anyone successfully reconciled or corrected this type of revenue classification issue? Any insights or similar experiences would be greatly appreciated, especially if you’ve navigated this during a Direct Bill eligibility review. Thanks in advance.
Error message: unable to validate your 'Create new GDAP relationship'
In Partner Center I want to create an admin relationship request for a certain customer. As you can see below I receive an error message when I clicked on 'finalize request'. The details of the error message: We are unable to validate your 'Create new GDAP relationship' request at this time. Be advised anonymous connections are not allowed for this service. If you believe you received this message in error, please try your request again. Click to https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/partner-center/gdap-faq?branch=main#what-action-must-a-partner-perform-for-a-715-123220-error-or-anonymous-connections-are-not-allowed-for-this-service. If the issue persists, contact support and reference message code 715-123220 and Transaction ID: xxxxxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx. I tried to create a request on different times of the day and even my colleague doesn't managed to finalize the request because she also receives the same message. Does anyone here has a solution for this because I need to create this request as soon as possible. Thanks in advance!
Microsoft SMB Copilot Bundles — CSP Partners Undercut on Pricing. Are Others Experiencing This?
I want to raise something that's creating real problems for us as a CSP partner, and I suspect we're not alone. Microsoft recently launched the SMB Copilot Business bundles — including a M365 Business Premium + Copilot Business bundle at 25% off. Great initiative. The problem? Through eCommerce (direct), customers can purchase this bundle from 1 seat. Through CSP, the bundle has a 10-seat minimum. This is causing a very specific and common issue: we have customers with well over 10 seats on Business Premium who want to trial Copilot with a small group first — say 3 to 8 users — before committing to a wider rollout. That's a completely reasonable approach. But because CSP enforces a 10-seat minimum on the bundle, we can't offer them the discounted pricing for a small initial rollout. Meanwhile, they can see that if they went direct with Microsoft, they'd get 25% off from just 1 seat. The result? Our customers are asking us why we — their trusted Microsoft Partner — are charging them more than Microsoft itself. Some are outright accusing us of trying to rip them off. These aren't micro-businesses slipping through the cracks. These are established customers with legitimate deployments who simply want to pilot Copilot sensibly before scaling up. We've raised this with Microsoft and the justification we received boils down to: the direct channel serves even the smallest customers, while CSP requires a 10-seat minimum to "ensure sufficient scale and support for partner-led deals" and to "protect partner business interests." With respect, this doesn't protect our interests at all. It actively undermines them. Here's what's actually happening: • Customers who want to trial Copilot on a handful of seats see a better deal going direct and question why they're paying a partner at all • It erodes trust in the partner relationship — the very thing Microsoft says it wants to strengthen • It creates an incentive for customers to move licensing to the direct channel for the trial, fragmenting their management and making our job harder • We're left in the impossible position of either absorbing margin to match the direct price, or losing the customer's confidence • Ironically, it discourages the very Copilot adoption Microsoft is pushing — customers who would happily trial on a few seats are put off by being told they need to commit to 10 or more through us We're not asking for special treatment. We're asking for parity. If Microsoft believes 25% off is the right price for this bundle, let us offer it to our customers too — regardless of how many seats they want to start with. We're the ones providing the onboarding, the training, the support, and the ongoing management. We shouldn't be penalised for it. Is anyone else running into this with customers who want to trial Copilot on fewer than 10 seats? How are you handling the conversation when they come to you asking why Microsoft is cheaper direct? Would love to hear how others are navigating this, and whether there's any appetite to push back on this collectively.
Issue Accepting Microsoft Partner Agreement
Hello, having an issue accepting the cloud partner agreement while enrolling in Partner Center. I am currently applying for our company's driver signing permissions on Microsoft. While filling out information on the following webpage: https://partner.microsoft.com/en-us/dashboard/account/exp/enrollnow/partner, I encountered an issue. When the webpage pulled our company name from Dun & Bradstreet, Microsoft deemed our company name invalid. I noticed that there is a comma in the name, as shown in the screenshot. However, when we applied for a signature from DigiCert, we used the same company name with the comma as the signing name. Therefore, I cannot remove the comma at this point because if I do, Microsoft might reject the signed certification file later due to a mismatch in the company name. Could you help resolve this issue?
