RE: [registrars] Verisign batch pool advisory

[Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

David,
Do you happen to know how long the registry gets hit after a drop currently?
~Paul

At 05:34 PM 10/6/2004 -0400, dwascheriar wrote:
>Paul,
>The top 10% of the names being checked are the ones that causes Verisign's
>infrastructure to start causing them problems. The single domain in that 10%
>is exactly the point and business models for the new accreditation. These
>are all 3.5 year conversations and conference calls we had that would take
>care of the top 10% of the drop names. All in all, we came up with some very
>good ways to "Fix" this part of the problem while still allowing anyone with
>a drop business model to operate.
>
>In MDR Verisign held a question and answer session which a modified check
>command would tell us if the domain was newly registered. If this little
>piece was implemented then approx the first 7 min of the drop would be hit
>the hardest and then drastically drop off reducing the load. Instead we
>continue to have less connections so to compensate new accreditations are
>being sought after.
>
>
>David Wascher
>IAregistry.com
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Paul Goldstone
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 4:13 PM
>> To: Paul Stahura
>> Cc: 'Registrars Constituency'
>> Subject: RE: [registrars] Verisign batch pool advisory
>>
>>
>> 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
>>