Re: [registrars] Separate WLS from Deletes issue

["Nezih Erkman" <nezih@erkman.com>]

I couldn't AGREE more.

Let me say it one more time: "technical problems need technical solutions"
Nop, not enough, one more time: "technical problems need technical
solutions"

Bruce and Ross : I agree.
And guess what; VeriSign thinks the same way (at least what I understand):
"We recognize that the WLS is not a solution for the deleted names issue"
[WLS Justification;VeriSign; Jan 28, 2002]
So they should have a separate plan for 'Deletes Issue'


Nezih Jack Erkman
R & K GBS, Inc.
000Domains.com
Cell: 501-779-1934
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Archer" <jarcher@registrationtek.com>
To: "Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@REACTO.com>; "Ross Wm. Rader"
<ross@tucows.com>; "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: [registrars] Separate WLS from Deletes issue


>
> I'm still confused by this concept of  "excessive use of checks/adds" I
> hear so much of.  Everytime I ask for some actual, hard engineering data,
> all I get is someone telling me how many tansactions are being executed or
> how this number is increasing and so on.
>
> I have yet to see any information (and I have asked) about actual
> consumption of bandwidth and system resources, or any information about
how
> whatever database engine being used is unable to handle the current
volume,
> or why the current resources can not be increased, or why the existing
> software is unable to  handle the projected volume, what technical and
> infrastructure improvements have been made to cope with this and so on.
We
> have only Verisign telling us this is an issue.
>
> There are plenty of other companies who have tremendous transaction volume
> and the technology required to process very high volumes of transactions
is
> a well established.  We have methods of dealing with TP ranging from
> MVS/CICS to EJB.  Its easy to find examples on the Internet, such as Ebay
> and such companies, but we need not look that far.  Instead, look at your
> ATM and credit cards. The worlds financial institutions have been doing
> this for decades and their volume makes Verisign's look piddeling.
>
> Lets try to keep in mind that technical problems need technical solutions.
> It may be that solving this technical problem is a major and expensive
> challenge.  So be it.  It may be that it really is too expensive to solve
> without non-technical changes to the way things are done.  But I don't
> think we have enough information to make that decision yet.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> --On Tuesday, February 12, 2002 8:03 PM +0000 "Paul M. Kane"
> <Paul.Kane@REACTO.com> wrote:
>
> > Bruce and Ross ... I agree.....
> >
> > I don't blame Verisign for trying it on.... what is interesting is that
> > the Registrars are not asking for the two issues to be addressed
> > seperately - either by the Names Council, the DNSO Constituencies or
> > Verisign Registry- the issues should be:
> > i) How to handle the expired names so not to crush the technical
> > resources of day to day business of the Registry/Registrar - that's how
> > this "problem" started.
> > ii) How to create a new "value added" market, that benefits the
> > competitive Registrar industry and their customers, and not the "sole
> > source" Registry....
> >
> > There is a Names Council meeting on Thursday (14th February) ....
perhaps
> > take soundings from the Constituency and put on the Agenda as AoB.....
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > "Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> >
> >> I couldn't agree more Bruce, but unfortunately, as long as Verisign is
> >> managing the consensus process and not the Names Council via the DNSO,
> >> our options are extremely limited.
> >>
> >> Were the NC to add this to the agenda for the DNSO and work towards a
> >> consensus resolution to the issue, I think that we would have an
> >> extremely good chance of arriving at a solution that closely resembles
> >> what you describe below.
> >>
> >> Take care,
> >>
> >> -rwr
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
> >> To: <registrars@dnso.org>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 11:47 AM
> >> Subject: [registrars] Separate WLS from Deletes issue
> >>
> >> > Hello All,
> >> >
> >> > I think we should separate the WLS as a proposed new service, from
the
> >> > problems with competition for expired names.
> >> >
> >> > One way to do this would be to prevent a WLS being placed on a name
> >> > within say 30 days of the expiry date of the domain during the trial
> >> > period.
> >> Thus
> >> > the WLS would then act as a genuine back order system, not as a
higher
> >> > re-registration fee for a deleted domain name.  We can still have the
> >> > various competing approaches to securing deleted names.
> >> >
> >> > The current WLS proposal would likely create the same behaviour as we
> >> > are seeing already.  ie speculators will wait for signs that a domain
> >> > name is about to be deleted, and then compete to get the WLS on the
> >> > name.
> >> >
> >> > I would like to see a proposed solution to the deletes problem (ie
> >> excessive
> >> > use of checks/adds in the lead up to a domain name being deleted), at
> >> > the same time that we decide on the WLS solution/trial.
> >> >
> >> > I personally like the idea of the back order concept as a new
business
> >> idea,
> >> > but I disagree that it solves the current problem with the existing
> >> > core registry service.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>
> *****************************
> Jim Archer, CEO
> Registration Technologies, Inc.
> 10 Crestview Drive
> Greenville, RI 02828
> voice: 401-949-4768
> fax: 401-949-5814
> jarcher@RegistrationTek.com
> http://www.RegistrationTek.com
>
>