[registrars] RE: [RegistrarsList] Basic access to registry vs. hoarding
On 7 Aug 01, at 20:42, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> I trust that the action taken earlier today at least solved the problem of
> some registrars not being able to get any connections.
> I can assure you that VGRS has not been taking this problem lightly but we
the problem is not if you take it lightly or not.
> have had to be extremely careful not to take any steps that would violate
> our equivalent access requirements. So even though we may have wanted to
some registrars, more than 4 reported it, did not have access
please do not call that equivalent access.
> take more drastic action (as you suggest) against those who appear to be
> abusing the system, we conferred with ICANN first and tried to make sure
> that our actions would be totally consistent with the equivalent access
> requirements. Moreover, we are continuing to work with ICANN toward
> achieving a longer term solution.
> I can assure you totally that the NSI Registrar has never been treated any
> differently than any other registrar with regard to access. Access has
comparing your words with reallity shows that one of both is wrong.
the question is not if you intended to treat differently but that you
did not prevent different treatment.
> always and will continue to be provided on a first come first served basis.
> Chuck Gomes
> Compliance Officer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 11:30 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Cc: Dan Halloran
> Subject: [RegistrarsList] Basic access to registry vs. hoarding
> Dear all,
> We have been experiencing extensive problems establishing
> a single connection to the registry. VGRS support indicated
> that some registrars are taking (or is it hoarding?)
> connections so that the registry has no connections available
> other registrars. As a result, several registars are simply
> locked out.
> This is intolerable and much worse than halt of the *entire*
> registry. The worst of all, of course, is the implicit
> for bad behaviour. Registrars who hoard connections have a
> higher chance of staying on-line.
> This is an emergency and the registry must act immediately.
> using coercive measures if need be. These must be directed
> at those hoard system resources. If it cannot be done
> in a subtle fashion (e.g. selectively close connections
> from the server end), then the appropriate measure is to
> block the registrar that used the most connections for
> a couple of minutes. This will allow the locked-out
> registrars to go back in, and associate bad behaviour
> with the risk of being locked out temporarily.
> There are two remaining issue with with respect to the
> behaviour of the registry.
> 1) The registry CANNOT be allowed to condone hoarding
> and lock-outs in order to minimise SLA refunds. If a
> large registrar has to be blocked so that just one
> connection can be provided to a small one, then so be
> 2) The registry has its own registrar affiliate. It is
> not tolerable to have some registrars locked out while
> the registry's own affiliate is on-line.
> VeriSign Global Registry Services a *crit :
> > To All Registrars:
> > On Friday July 13, 2001 VeriSign Global Registry Services introduced
> > connection and bandwidth limitations into the Shared Registration System
> > (SRS). RRP connections were set to a maximum of 250 and registrar
> > was set to a maximum of 256Kb. Unfortunately, since July 13, these
> > limitations have not had the desired results. Specifically, VeriSign GRS
> > observed the following:
> > 1. The morning land rushes are still occurring. The pattern of behavior
> > suggests that the "land rush" window will only increase as registrars
> > prepare to compete for recently dropped domain names.
> > 2. While some registrars have reduced their normal connections, most have
> > either taken no action or have responded by grabbing and holding a larger
> > number of connections throughout the day.
> > As a result of the above activity, a number of registrars have contacted
> > Customer Service informing us that they have been unable to establish any
> > connections to the SRS during these "land rushes". In response to this,
> > VeriSign GRS will be reducing the RRP connection limits to 200 effective
> > immediately. Prior to authorizing this change, VeriSign GRS did obtain
> > approval from ICANN.
> > As I stated in my last notice, VeriSign GRS recognizes that, although they
> > should be helpful in the short term, the connection limitations described
> > above will not ensure access in all load circumstances and are only a
> > partial solution. We will therefore be working with registrars and ICANN
> > develop fair and effective longer-term means of providing every registrar
> > appropriate access to the SRS.
> > If you have any questions regarding the above change, please contact
> > Customer Service at firstname.lastname@example.org.
> > Best Regards,
> > Chris Sheridan
> > Customer Service
> > VeriSign Global Registry Services
> > www.verisign-grs.com
> > email@example.com
> > ---------
> > Participants on the VeriSign Global Registry Services registrars list are
> requested to not cross-post messages.
> Participants on the VeriSign Global Registry Services registrars list are
> requested to not cross-post messages.
> Participants on the VeriSign Global Registry Services registrars list are requested to not cross-