RE: [registrars] Verisign batch pool advisory

[Paul Stahura <stahura@xxxxxxxx>]

Paul

Even if VeriSign spent nearly an infinite amount of money on this problem
(to "expand their capabilities"), and if we kept the status quo, then,
because it costs very close to absolutely nothing to pound the crap out of
the registry, all registrars would increase their registry pounding rates to
the level that would immediately use up absolutely all the vast capabilities
that the nearly infinite amount of money purchased.   While at the same
time, we would not register even one more name than we did with the system
that did not have the vast capabilities.
 
Best,
Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Goldstone
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:00 AM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: 'Bhavin Turakhia'; 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: RE: [registrars] Verisign batch pool advisory

Tim,

Why should we be forced to go with one of their two choices?  The only 
solution to this supposed issue is that Verisign should invest the 
positive revenue they earn from batch pool registrations into 
expanding their capabilities like other businesses do when sales 
increase.  Why should we help pay for registry obligations unless they 
are also willing to help pay for registrar obligations?

It doesn't seem fair that they've been lowering the batch pool 
connections at the same time as launching their own drop name service.

On a related note, did anyone notice the following ICANN announcement 
from 9/21/04 on the "Expired Domain Deletion Policy"?:
http://www.icann.org/registrars/eddp.htm

The way I read it, except for registrant renewal or extenuating 
circumstances as defined in 3.7.5.1 of the RRA, a registrar must 
cancel a registration at the end of the auto-renew grace period.  
ICANN basically expanded on the original ambiguous policy.  That might 
ruffle a few feathers but it doesn't go into effect until 6/21/05 
though.  Any idea why there's such a long lead time?

Regards,
~Paul

At 10:22 AM 10/6/2004 -0500, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>Bhavin,
>
>The forgiveness component consists of two criteria:
>
>1. Fewer than 350,000 names under management, and 
>
>2. A ratio of attempted add commands to successful add commands of less
than
>200 to 1.
>
>So at least the top 20 or so registrars will still not qualify for
>forgiveness.
>
>Tim
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bhavin Turakhia [mailto:bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
>Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 10:43 PM
>To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Bhavin Turakhia'; 'Registrars Constituency'
>Subject: RE: [registrars] Verisign batch pool advisory
>
>
>> So while option 1 may not be ideal either, for now, it will 
>> make the usefulness of the *phantom* registrars pretty much nil.
>> 
>> Also, with Network Solutions' and Tucows' intention to offer 
>> a secondary market service to registrants with 
>> expiring/deleting names, far less valuable names are going to 
>> actually hit the drop list anyway. So I think the future 
>> value of the batch pool is going to change dramatically.
>
>My greater concern is that implementing 1 will result in a situation where
>icann will not meet its budget sinc everyone will match the forgiveness
>criteria.
>
>Im still out on the road all of this week and will only be back in office
>after 2 weeks ..... And therefore will be a lil quiet :)
>
>-B