Re: Interesting Mechanism - Re: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and SessionLimits to be Deployed within the SRS

[Marc Schneiders <marc@venster.nl>]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, at 01:12 [=GMT-0700], Derek Conant wrote:

> VeriSign's deployment of a Bandwidth and Session Limits mechanism is
> interesting.
> 
> All Registrars are not the same, however, they will be treated the same.  There
> are large Registrars and small Registrars.  There are Registrars who use the SRS
> for registering domain names and others who may be involved in abuse activity.
> It would seem that VeriSign is capable of identifying and defining the source of
> problems concerning Registrars engaged in abuse activity.

What is abuse activity? Trying very hard to register a name the moment
it drops? A lot of people try that, some with success. Today I got
bsdunix.com as well as rootservice.net. I did not get nameguide.com or
yul.com. Three letter names (any) are grabbed by people on good
connections and with bomb scripts.

There are registrars (ICANN accredited) that even have a special
website for getting expired names, where one can bid on a name.
las.com, which expired a few days back did as much as $2,500.00 on one
of those. This snap up site did not get it though :-) No, it was not
snapnames.

There are registrars that are SELLING access at the rush hour... What
does this all mean? ICANN seems to be reconsidering the policies of
first come first serve. Well, they approved a lottery for .biz (buy as
many tickets as you like, we don't mind, the more the better, yeah). I
would not be surprised if ICANN would set up something that only
benefits the big money people for expired domains. All fine with
me. It is a cartel anyway. Either you find enough money to buy
yourself into it, or you fight it. Or you sit in a corner and cry
reading some poetry.

Now, I will stop being rhetorical, and get practical. What if someone
really wants a name that expires badly? At present there is no way to
be certain that you can get it. Not snapnames or any other site, as
far as I know. It is a matter of luck. I know, I am into this. So do
we want this situation? I think that is the question.

By the way, I did not notice any difference at the rush hour today. My
impression is not that Verisign is handling this in any 'bad' way.

-- 
Marc@Schneiders.ORG

> The subject mechanism on one hand appears to benefit the small Registrars by
> inhibiting the large Registrar's access to the SRS.  However, on the other hand,
> it also appears that the mechanism will control small Registrars by preventing
> them from engaging activity described as abuse.  Large Registrars in the domain
> name industry will not need to engage in any kind of abuse activity if the small
> Registrars are limited in this capacity.
> 
> Now, what is abuse activity?
> 
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
> 
> "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> 
> > There is no violation of our agreements with ICANN.  In fact, it is the
> > equivalent access requirements of the agreements that makes the problem more
> > difficult to solve and this step was designed to ensure continued equivalent
> > access for all registrars.
> >
> > BTW, I suspect that the measure is not nearly as drastic as you may think.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eric Dierker [mailto:eric@hi-tek.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 9:44 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: 'Peter de Blanc'; ga@dnso.org; 'Alexander Svensson'
> > Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed
> > within the SRS
> >
> > Mr. Gomes,
> >
> > Will this work?  You must know exactly what is causing the problem to invoke
> > such a drastic measure. What is the exact problem?  Is this a violation of
> > your contract with ICANN (albeit probably justified and righteous)?
> >
> > Thanks ahead of time for your thoughtful response,
> > Eric
> >
> > "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> >
> > > Yes.  All registrars are treated the same.
> > >
> > > Chuck Gomes
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:pdeblanc@usvi.net]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 10:22 AM
> > > To: ga@dnso.org
> > > Cc: 'Alexander Svensson'
> > > Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed
> > > within the SRS
> > >
> > > Does this mean that the VeriSign-NetSol link will also be limited to 250
> > > connections and 256 K ?
> > >
> > > Peter de Blanc
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of
> > > Alexander Svensson
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 5:25 AM
> > > To: ga@dnso.org
> > > Subject: [ga] FYI: Bandwidth and Session Limits to be Deployed within
> > > the SRS
> > >
> > > "VeriSign Registry proposed that, as an interim measure, it would place
> > > a uniform limit of 250 simultaneous connections and 256k bandwidth
> > > applied to each accredited registrar."
> > >
> > > http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr16jul01.htm
> > >
> > > ICANN Advisory
> > > Equitable Allocation of Shared Registration System Resources
> > >
> > > (
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html