RE: [registrars] Verisign batch pool advisory

[Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

That's going on the assumption that every new registrar is going for 
the same dropped name as existing registrars and not creating any new 
registrations either.

Anyway, I just feel that this is not our issue to resolve or pay for.

Regards,
~Paul

At 12:50 PM 10/6/2004 -0700, Paul Stahura wrote:
>Its nearly the same problem, but in this case, instead of the costs (to
>pound with say another 100 or whatever connections they give a registrar)
>being "very close to absolutely nothing" the costs would still be very low.
>The only costs would be the ICANN accreditation fees and an incorporation
>fee, which are relatively low, plus these costs GO DOWN with the increasing
>number of registrars due to ICANN's budget structure.  Note those "paying
>registrars" you speak of who are buying more access are not paying VeriSign
>for it. With status-quo, the math works out to a capacity size at over 4,000
>registrars (400,000 connections all pounding full-bore) at stead-state.  And
>again, we (all the pounding registrars) would not register even one more
>name than we did with the system that did not have that huge capacity
>investment.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Goldstone [mailto:paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
>Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 12:20 PM
>To: Paul Stahura
>Cc: Tim Ruiz; 'Bhavin Turakhia'; 'Registrars Constituency'
>Subject: RE: [registrars] Verisign batch pool advisory
>
>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