Re: [ga] Re: Temporary Suspension of Batch Delete Process

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Paul and all assembly members,

Paul Cotton wrote:

>    Call me cynical, but it would seem Verisign already knows the
> outcome they desire from this.

  I am sure you are not alone in this feeling...

>
>
> They issued an advisory stating limits for the registrars, which has
> obviously been seen as a green light to registrars (which is an
> entirely logical outcome).  By setting uniform limits Verisign created
> a level playing field for the registrars and also encouraged
> participation in this lucrative area of registration.
>
> Yet now we have Verisign crying to ICANN about the registrars running
> at the limits they themselves set.  This smells of a calculated plan
> by Verisign to emphasize the number registration requests and to allow
> them to suspend the deletions and give the impression that they are
> looking for a solution.  This solution will, no doubt, involve
> Verisign generating revenue from the deletions - whether by their
> being a participant in the re-registrations or by some other means.

  Could be!  Certainly this is one way amongst several that I can think
of
that Verisign/NSI can capitalize on in this obvious game...

>
>
> The obvious solution is to penalize registrars who abuse the network,
> but this would not actually benefit Verisign financially and that is,
> in my opinion, why they dismiss this obvious route so readily.
>
> The ICANN accreditation demands that domains are deleted if not
> renewed.  A landrush system would surely amount to transferring the
> domains and this would create a whole raft of problems.
>
> If Verisign were to spread the deletions across a whole day all that
> would create is continuous monitoring by the registrars rather than a
> small timeframe during which this activity occurs.  As it stands, the
> window during which the deletions take place does not impact the
> normal operation of registrars during their peak hours.
>
> The solution would seem to be to set a maximum level at which the
> registrars can operate, maybe by taking a realistic loading at the
> registry and dividing by the anticipated number of registrars and
> blocking attempts in excess of this level.
>
> Of course, this would not generate any revenues for Verisign so I
> doubt this workable solution will be the one implemented.
>
> One thing is for sure, Verisign has no real interest in discussing
> this issue in this forum.

  Or any forum!

>
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html