RE: [registrars] nameservers and deleting a domain (was RE: Marina del Rey Registrar Meeting - September 12)

[Mike Lampson <lampson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>> I believe the RC should push the gTLD Constituency into spearheading
>> the research of a Registry-to-Registry protocol for nameserver
>> management.  Such a capability should eliminate the need for Registrars
>> to define "external" nameservers in multiple Registries.

I should have also said that such a solution should handle the propagation
of nameserver changes or the removal of a nameserver as needed for domains
registered in the Registries participating in the synchronization protocol.

_M


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mike Lampson
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 1:28 PM
To: 'Registrars'
Cc: Tim Ruiz
Subject: [registrars] nameservers and deleting a domain (was RE: Marina
del Rey Registrar Meeting - September 12)


Tim,

It appears that this work-around works at PIR and I suspect other EPP
Registries also.  We have been renaming nameservers for domains that we
delete to  "external" hosts that we can define without IP addresses.  (e.g.
NS1.EXAMPLE.COM (at VeriSign) would be renamed LAMExxx.IAREGISTRY.US.)  The
IP address then becomes free so that the administrator of the DNS server
using that IP can reassign it to a new host name if they wish.  The domains
still using the old nameserver may stop working at that point but this is
the only wake-up call we seem to be able to make to domain holders (at other
Registrars) whose domains are hosted via the deactivated domain.

It is possible that the issue is (temporarily?) a non-issue under the
Redemption Grace Period implementation at VeriSign.  There have been a
couple of domains which were scheduled to be truly deleted at the end of the
RGP cycle but were delayed due to having a registered nameserver.  Since the
RRP "delete" command is not truly deleting the name but changing the status
to REDEMPTIONPERIOD, it appears that a Registrar does not need to remove the
nameserver.  I have not tested this with any domains that we have deleted
however.

At one point during the EPP-ProvReg working group activity, I had mentioned
in an e-mail to Scott Hollenbeck the need for the Registries to coordinate
the management of nameservers separate from the Registry-Registrar
communication protocol.  We are getting to the point where nameservers
registered under a .COM or .NET domain are being deleted but are still
listed as valid for .ORG, .INFO, etc.   I believe the RC should push the
gTLD Constituency into spearheading the research of a Registry-to-Registry
protocol for nameserver management.  Such a capability should eliminate the
need for Registrars to define "external" nameservers in multiple Registries.

Regards,

Mike Lampson
The Registry at Info Avenue, LLC


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:13 AM
To: 'Bhavin Turakhia'; 'Michael D Palage'; 'Registrars'
Subject: RE: [registrars] Marina del Rey Registrar Meeting - September
12


Right, we do that at VeriSign. But it is not ideal because then you end
up with creating nameservers for this sole purpose. And does that work
with NeuLevel, Afilias, etc.?

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: Bhavin Turakhia [mailto:bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 9:01 AM
To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Michael D. Palage'; 'Registrars'
Subject: RE: [registrars] Marina del Rey Registrar Meeting - September
12



> If the registries are willing to be more involved, then
> perhaps they could take it upon themselves to agree to cancel
> these names if the nameservers in question no longer ping. A
> separate request to cancel names of this nature would be
> submitted, the registry would check them out, and delete them
> if appropriate.
>
> Other ideas?

Currently I believe we handle it by simply changing the nameservers to
"nameservername.directideleteddomains.com". That works fine for us.
Doesn't everyone do that?

bhavin