RE: [registrars] Verisign batch pool advisory

[Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul,

That's a fair point but you can't pound the batch pool any more than 
the connections you're given.  So, if registrars would use the max, 
whatever that max is (10, 20, 100 connections), why don't Verisign 
simply keep the original number of connections and yes, increase their 
capabilities as they get more paying registrars on board?  ie. why is 
this even a discussion?  Will we be discussing whois usage next?

Regards,
~Paul

At 11:18 AM 10/6/2004 -0700, Paul Stahura wrote:
>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