Re: [registrars] Separate WLS from Deletes issue

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

The expired issue started as a technical discussion and we were asking for
this to be fixed by a technical solution. The conversations merged when the
discussion moved on how to govern the speculators and the expired names
because the registrars considered this to be the root cause to the expired
names.

Again we have process that are not being followed and short term fixes that
could be implemented - where are they??? So far nothing has been done in the
interest of the registrars including the transfer issues.

The drops have discontinued and the connections are still suffering which
means that the system is not scaled for the normal volume of registrars
registrations. Where is plan to correct this? VGRS is quickly implementing
DNS hosting and several other services. Why cant this be fixed in a
reasonable time frame.

David
iaregistry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nezih Erkman" <nezih@erkman.com>
To: "Registrars Constituency" <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [registrars] Separate WLS from Deletes issue


|
| 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
| >
| >
|