RE: [registrars] Separate WLS from Deletes issue

["Tom D'Alleva" <tdalleva@bulkregister.com>]

"A sound technical solution is predicated on a sound business solution."
(T.D. 1986)

The reason that WLS does not address the deletion issue is not just
technical.

As I see it, the deletion issue has been discussed at length. Many proposals
were put forth without concensus.  Turning to VeriSign to for a solution is
like asking the fox to guard the hen house. I suggest that we consider the
business issues in conjunction with potential technical solutions and
recommend our own solution to the registry. Each of the proposals offered
has some merit.  A hybrid of those proposals would address multiple business
and technical problems.

I recommend we take another look at existing proposals.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Nezih Erkman
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 4:57 PM
> To: Registrars Constituency
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Separate WLS from Deletes issue
>
>
>
> I couldn't AGREE more.
>
> Let me say it one more time: "technical problems need technical solutions"
> Nop, not enough, one more time: "technical problems need technical
> solutions"
>
> Bruce and Ross : I agree.
> And guess what; VeriSign thinks the same way (at least what I understand):
> "We recognize that the WLS is not a solution for the deleted names issue"
> [WLS Justification;VeriSign; Jan 28, 2002]
> So they should have a separate plan for 'Deletes Issue'
>
>
> Nezih Jack Erkman
> R & K GBS, Inc.
> 000Domains.com
> Cell: 501-779-1934
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Archer" <jarcher@registrationtek.com>
> To: "Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@REACTO.com>; "Ross Wm. Rader"
> <ross@tucows.com>; "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
> Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 2:39 PM
> Subject: 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.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --On Tuesday, February 12, 2002 8:03 PM +0000 "Paul M. Kane"
> > <Paul.Kane@REACTO.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.....
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > "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,
> > >>
> > >> -rwr
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
> > >> To: <registrars@dnso.org>
> > >> 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.
> > >> Thus
> > >> > 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
> > >> excessive
> > >> > 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
> > >> idea,
> > >> > 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
> > voice: 401-949-4768
> > fax: 401-949-5814
> > jarcher@RegistrationTek.com
> > http://www.RegistrationTek.com
> >
> >
>