Fw: [registrars] RE: Equitable Allocation of Shared Registration System Resources

["David Wascher" <dwascher@iaregistry.com>]

Another possibility would be to have NSI offer another service that is
through a different firewall and port number. Cisco does offer add-on
products for the PIX and other firewalls providing the ability to restrict
the flow of data through a port. They also provide the ability to restrict
the amount of connections through a given IP. One IP could have 5(?)
connections for a set price. If your business model requires more
connections then you purchase another IP for another 5 connections. NSI
could even push the deleted names to a separate database / system if needed.
This would off load this service and allow normal new registration business
to continue. The push of data to a separate system would prevent  a
registrar from hammering the normal registry port. From this drop system a
backend process "transaction manager" is used to update the records in the
main database at given times.

A set of definitions would need to be drafted to define how many checks and
adds can be posted. Define the requirements and go through an OTE phase.

The IP fee could be used for managing and monitoring the system.  This would
allow registrars that do not participate in this to carry out normal
business with appropriate connections.

On the other hand it would allow the registrars that cater to this market
the ability to offer this service to that market and be competitive.

David W.
Manager IARegistry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Antony Van Couvering" <avc@nameengine.com>
To: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 8:48 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: Equitable Allocation of Shared Registration
System Resources


This solution, or something similar, makes most sense to me.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Sat 8/11/2001 7:31 PM
To: 'registrars@dnso.org'
Cc:
Subject: [registrars] RE: Equitable Allocation of Shared
Registration System Resources



There is a relatively simple solution to this, and that is to
separate out
the market for expired domains from the normal market for new
domains.

This can be done in a similar manner to that for ".biz" and
".info" to
handle landrush.

e.g
(1) Registry queue up expired domains for a period (e.g 1 month)
and
advertise a list of expired domains available
(2) Registry accepts pre-registrations for these expired domains
for a
period (e.g 1 week)
(3) Registry executes a random selection from the
pre-registrations
(4) Repeat cycle for ever

There definitely needs to be a fairer system for allocating
expired domains.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 9:38 PM
To: Registrar@registrar.icann.org; Registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Fw: [council] Posting of Second Advisory
Concerning Equitable Allocation of Shared Registration System
Resources


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.

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:

" 1.More than 400 million check commands within a six-hour
window to
register a few hundred desirable names each morning
2. Single registrars executing as many as 1500 attempts per
second
3. The same registrar sending a check command for the same name
in excess of
1000 times per minute over extended periods of time
4. Registrars hoarding connections (grabbing all connections up
to their
limit) and, with the exception of the describe command,
executing
single-digit numbers of transactions until they are prepared to
execute
pre-staged batch jobs that will invade the system at rates noted
in excess
of 100,000 per minute
5. Registrars executing in excess of 100,000 check commands for
each name
successfully registered, compared to a typical ratio of well
under 1,000
check commands for each name successfully registered
6. Registrars who typically use less than 10 connections
throughout the day,
then increase that connection count to a triple-digit number
7. Registrars who clearly execute an automated check process
(i.e., checks
for the same names at rates in excess of 1000 per minute)
8. Registrars whose typical usage patterns suggest the need for
a
single-digit number of connections, and who then increase their
connection
count by up to 200 times without a corresponding increase in
productive
activity (i.e., a registrar who hoards connections in an
apparent attempt to
deny others)

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).

we need to get started on this NOW...

we registrars,  as a group, need to be much more pro-active in
developing
solutions to problems created within our own group rather than
sitting back
and waiting for others to impose rules, procedures, etc on us.

i would hope that this proposal would not just get "discussed to
death" but
rather implemented ASAP but that is a decision which you as a
group need to
support.

your thoughts please ?

best wishes

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
>