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

["erica" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

I think Registrars should remember that we are not the only ones with a
stake in this.  Demand side (CONSUMERS) also have a strong interest in this
and we should bear in mind the need to work with both the ISP and Business
constituencies.
It would be good if the RC can come up with an initial draft policy doc on
these issues which can then be the focus for consensus building amongst
interested constituencies.

erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick H Wesson" <wessorh@ar.com>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
Cc: <Registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: [registrars] Fw: [council] Posting of Second Advisory
Concerning Equitable Allocation of Shared Registration System Resources


>
> Ross,
>
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Which Monday Rick? If it is the 13th that you are referring to, I'll
have to
> > respectfully disagree. If you are summarizing proposals, then it is
> > important that you first solicit proposals, allow for their preparation
and
> > then summarize them. This is not something that can happen over the next
48
> > hours. The fact is, the current "proposals" represent the thinking of a
very
> > limited cross-section of registrar representatives. We need to make sure
> > that a broad range is represented.
>
> Monday the 13th  is when I was going to have the various proposals that
> have been posted to the registrars, and dnso lists. They are just ideas
> posted, the CURRENT proposals as I stated above. Don't worry, your
> viewpoint won't be left out.
>
> This is the starting point, a document of the problem and the discussion
> to date. VeriSign has not even gotten back to me with who and what
> resources we have to work with so I don't know what kinds of data they
> will provide.
>
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Not sure that I completely agree. While the registry may or may not
provide
> > us with global data (have we asked?), the RC represents a tremendous
> > resource unto itself. The operational experience and observations that
we
> > collectively possess may be enough to make up for any lack of hard data
that
> > the registry possesses.
>
> I think the registry has taken the appropiate SHORT TERM steps to prevent
> the behavior that is detremental to us all; however, we need to figure out
> the long term solution. This is what I have been tasked with, driving the
> process, not providing the solution.
>
>
> -rick
>
>