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.
--On Tuesday, February 12, 2002 8:03 PM +0000 "Paul M. Kane"
> 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.....
> "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,
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
>> To: <email@example.com>
>> 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.
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> > 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