ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Re: Temporary Suspension of Batch Delete Process


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


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>