DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] For those interested in delete games


--- Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, William X Walsh wrote:
> > There is no need for additional proposals, Verisign should resolve
> the
> > technical problems they may be having, and the current system
> should
> > stand unless and until there is a REAL need for changing it.
> ok, thanks for the comment.

I concur with William on that point. Numerous technical suggestions
have been made to reduce registry load, and many came from the
registrars themselves. There hasn't been any *proof* that I've seen
that a technical fixed won't reduce their load.
> > Verisign should be required to substantiate the NEED For a change
> in
> > the current system, and pointing out PRECISELY what problems exist
> in
> > the current system that warrant a change in the way this process
> > works, and then a process should be developed and approved of that
> > resolve the problems.
> they have; at least to registrars.

Perhaps you can repeat their answers here. I assume they relate to
TECHICAL problems (for Verisign registry, the ICANN-contracted database
operator) and not BUSINESS problems (for Verisign corporation looking
for new products and services). When I previously asked these questions
(in the initial "Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some SnapNames
stats" post) Chuck Gomes only responded in terms of whether I was
opposed to Verisign making a profit! Here were the questions once more:

1) Clear and proven definitions of what constitutes "abusive
Prove to me and others that this is not an invention of the monopolist
registry operator Verisign, seeking to maximize profits through a
self-serving "fix" of its own choosing.

2) Clear explanations as to why the numerous simple and inexpensive
technical solutions that have been proposed to reduce registry load
have not been implemented.

In addition, Verisign has bandied about this myth of "too many checks
against the registry" being a denial of service attack. If Verisign has
the ability to count the number of requests in aggregate per day/month,
that it used to produce some fancy graphs indicating a "problem", it
can certainly provide a breakdown of the count by registrar. Let us see
once and for all who is doing "too much" and is "abusing" or "gaming"
the system (I use the quotes, since I'm unconvinced abuse takes place
at all).

If simple chat systems (ircd, AOL chat, etc.), with open source code,
are able to disconnect users who are "flooding" too many requests per
second, I am sure that Verisign registry can do the same. If so, please
explain why they can't Hard Code a limit of N requests per second,
either at the registry level or at each of the registrars?

Oh yes, I also can tell Verisign registry that they *do* have this code
already in their system -- try to do too many WHOIS lookups in a
certain time period, and your IP gets banned from doing any further
(I'm banned from NameScout's WHOIS, for checking too many in that "Hot
100" list that SnapNames produced!)

Thus, Verisign has at least 3 sources of "throttling" or
"rate-limiting" source code to draw from: a) freeware chat server
software, b) their own WHOIS server source code or c) NameScout's
WHOIS. They can even adapt the little "code snippet" that I posted to
the list earlier, which had the "sleep()" command clearly visible.

> the problem is not fictional. bareing this in mind would you now like
> to
> submit some requirements?

If Verisign was somehow able to pass the above "sniff" test, that there
is a true technical problem, I think a few requirements (not
exhaustive, as some requirements would require more reflection):

1) Equal opportunity be preserved to allow any registrar to acquire a
deleted name, using any business model of the registrar's choosing (and
not one forced upon them by Verisign registry, either explicitly or
implicitly). No current business model that is in place (I've mentioned
8 groups of existing competitors to SnapNames that use a variety of
business models) must be forcibly required to change their business
model, unless it can be proven that they have caused the abuse through
their choice of business models.

2) Registrants should continue to have the ability to register an
expired name at a registrar's normal price for a brand new registration
for ALL deleted names (including 'premium' ones). Remember, even those
registrars using automated processes are permitted to do so only in the
batch pool, not in the normal or overflow connection pools. Simple
registrants who happen to "time it right" can still hold out a
possibility of getting a name at the normal price of a brand new
registration (which means under $15 from most Verisign competitors).
Thus, no "Verisign surtax" for any name that was previously registered,
as compared to a brand new registration, even so called "premium
names". Verisign might own .tv with their graduated pricing scheme, but
they don't own .com/net, yet.

3) Any system should not grandfather any entity's perceived "ownership"
of a name -- it doesn't belong to the registry, and it doesn't belong
to the registrars, and it doesn't belong to some SnapBack holder who
bought a SnapBack six months ago on a name.

4) Any new system should be whole hog, not a "test bed" that folks want
to tinker with and re-adapt. If you want to run a "test-bed", for proof
of concept, it can be run on dot-net or dot-org.

Those are a few starters. Hopefully others agree that they are
reasonable requirements, as otherwise any new system would give people
fewer options than is available now.

Someone in another post wondered if the "Status Quo Proposal" was
intended in jest -- it was not. I think if "Status Quo" was deemed to
be unacceptable for whatever reason, that the WLS Proposal (which gives
a monopoly to the registry) and the "Afternic auction proposal" (which
gives a monopoly to a cartel of registrars) have as much basis in
reality and fairness as the "Let's make George Kirikos a
Multi-Millionaire" proposal", which gives a monopoly to a single modest
and benevolent registrant. Since ICANN is supposed to be looking after
the interests of registrants, I assume they'll pick Proposal #4 from
the current menu. 


George Kirikos

P.S. I'm not on the ICANN-DELETE mailing list, so if never arrives
there, someone should forward it. I think that mailing list was
restricted, so I can't read replies....

Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>