RE: [registrars] RE: Equitable Allocation of Shared Registration System Resources

["Antony Van Couvering" <avc@nameengine.com>]

This solution, or something similar, makes most sense to me.

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Bruce Tonkin 
	Sent: Sat 8/11/2001 7:31 PM 
	To: 'registrars@dnso.org' 
	Cc: 
	Subject: [registrars] RE: Equitable Allocation of Shared
Registration System Resources 
	
	

	There is a relatively simple solution to this, and that is to
separate out
	the market for expired domains from the normal market for new
domains.
	
	This can be done in a similar manner to that for ".biz" and
".info" to
	handle landrush.
	
	e.g
	(1) Registry queue up expired domains for a period (e.g 1 month)
and
	advertise a list of expired domains available
	(2) Registry accepts pre-registrations for these expired domains
for a
	period (e.g 1 week)
	(3) Registry executes a random selection from the
pre-registrations
	(4) Repeat cycle for ever
	
	There definitely needs to be a fairer system for allocating
expired domains.
	
	Regards,
	Bruce Tonkin
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
	Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 9:38 PM
	To: Registrar@registrar.icann.org; Registrars@dnso.org
	Subject: [registrars] Fw: [council] Posting of Second Advisory
	Concerning Equitable Allocation of Shared Registration System
Resources
	
	
	fellow registrars...
	
	i am personally very troubled by the data released by the
Verisign Registry
	in support or the recent action taken as indicated in the url
listed below.
	i bothers me to think that that even a "possibility" exists that
a limited #
	of parties could create a technical "scenerio"   where
"registrar-
	competitiors" could be denied access to the ability to conduct
normal
	business.
	
	i would strongly suggest that the registrars form a "working
group" led by
	our new CTO rick wesson to investigate the circumstances
surrounding these
	actions described in the letter ... to wit:
	
	" 1.More than 400 million check commands within a six-hour
window to
	register a few hundred desirable names each morning
	 2. Single registrars executing as many as 1500 attempts per
second
	3. The same registrar sending a check command for the same name
in excess of
	1000 times per minute over extended periods of time
	4. Registrars hoarding connections (grabbing all connections up
to their
	limit) and, with the exception of the describe command,
executing
	single-digit numbers of transactions until they are prepared to
execute
	pre-staged batch jobs that will invade the system at rates noted
in excess
	of 100,000 per minute
	5. Registrars executing in excess of 100,000 check commands for
each name
	successfully registered, compared to a typical ratio of well
under 1,000
	check commands for each name successfully registered
	6. Registrars who typically use less than 10 connections
throughout the day,
	then increase that connection count to a triple-digit number
	7. Registrars who clearly execute an automated check process
(i.e., checks
	for the same names at rates in excess of 1000 per minute)
	8. Registrars whose typical usage patterns suggest the need for
a
	single-digit number of connections, and who then increase their
connection
	count by up to 200 times without a corresponding increase in
productive
	activity (i.e., a registrar who hoards connections in an
apparent attempt to
	deny others)
	
	this 'working group" needs to have a balance of both large,
medium, & small
	registrars ( i would suggest 2 from each category) and should be
tasked with
	the responsibility of anlyzing the problem, and recommending
potential
	technical  solutions, ( or other actions as the group  would
deem
	appropriate) to the balance of the registrar constituancy for
proposed
	action ( which could be taken at the montevideo meeting).
	
	we need to get started on this NOW...
	
	we registrars,  as a group, need to be much more pro-active in
developing
	solutions to problems created within our own group rather than
sitting back
	and waiting for others to impose rules, procedures, etc on us.
	
	i would hope that this proposal would not just get "discussed to
death" but
	rather implemented ASAP but that is a decision which you as a
group need to
	support.
	
	your thoughts please ?
	
	best wishes
	
	ken stubbs
	
	
	> To the Names Council:
	>
	> ICANN has posted a follow-up to its 16 July advisory
concerning
	> equitable allocation among registrars of .com/.net/.org Shared
	> Registration Services.  The follow-up appears at
	> <http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr10aug01.htm>.
	>
	> Best regards,
	>
	> Louis Touton
	>