Re: [registrars] Fw: [council] Posting of Second Advisory ConcerningEquitable Allocation of Shared Registration System Resources

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Ken,

On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> fellow registrars...
>
> i am personally very troubled by the data released by the Verisign Registry
> in support or the recent action taken as indicated in the url listed below.
> i bothers me to think that that even a "possibility" exists that a limited #
> of parties could create a technical "scenerio"   where "registrar-
> competitiors" could be denied access to the ability to conduct normal
> business.

to tell the truth I wasn't surprised. what these registrar(s) are doing
amounts to a denial of service attack, consuming so many resources it
denies service for other registrars.

> i would strongly suggest that the registrars form a "working group" led by
> our new CTO rick wesson to investigate the circumstances surrounding these
> actions described in the letter ... to wit:

ok, I've already inquired with the registry on who their point person is,
no word yet. we'll do the discussion on the main list, no need to make a
spcial place for this discussion/group. Any registrar can contribute and
I'll summarize the current proposals before monday.


> " 1.More than 400 million check commands within a six-hour window to
> register a few hundred desirable names each morning
...
>
> this 'working group" needs to have a balance of both large, medium, & small
> registrars ( i would suggest 2 from each category) and should be tasked with
> the responsibility of anlyzing the problem, and recommending potential
> technical  solutions, ( or other actions as the group  would deem
> appropriate) to the balance of the registrar constituancy for proposed
> action ( which could be taken at the montevideo meeting).

Since the registry can't/won't give us raw data, we can not do any real
analysis, we will probably be limited to social engineering. It is a
registrar behavior we want to change not a technology we need implemented.
We need the registry delete process changed so that the registrars can't
game the system by a behavior that looks to other registrars like a DoS
attack.

I hope we can form a solution before Montevideo, wouldn't it be nice to
make a decision w/o having to meet F2F to do it?

-rick

> ken stubbs
>
>
> > To the Names Council:
> >
> > ICANN has posted a follow-up to its 16 July advisory concerning
> > equitable allocation among registrars of .com/.net/.org Shared
> > Registration Services.  The follow-up appears at
> > <http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr10aug01.htm>.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Louis Touton
> >
>