Folks, This is really a waste of time. The registry wants to be judge and jury on who are legitimate registrars and who are out just for drop. That is why they are creating a ratio model that is so ridiculous. They want to police us and determine who is good folk and who is not by using their own rules. That is why they came up with the two choices...both 100% in their favor. ICANN also did not help when they approved 500 registrars and threw them down VeriSign's throat to OTE and all hook up to what was supposed to be a temporary solution to a problem discovered in the guarantee pool in 2001 - the batch pool. Now VeriSign is on a mission to show ICANN something in my opinion. Elimination of 200-300 accreditations which puts ICANN's budget in question again, and between all of us who run actual businesses - we will be the ones stuck with the bill at the end of the day. This situation is going to weed everyone out regardless of the outcome folks! In my opinion, the only way to address this is head on with VeriSign and put up a fight. We pay their bills at the domain registry level. They should be enabling registrations not put hurdles in place to limit us. We were in a free market until recently, now we are in a zoo stuck in cages. It's time to break free again and share space with each other. Monte Cahn Founder/CEO Monte@Moniker.com Monte@DomainSystems.com O - 954-984-8445 F - 954-969-9155 Moniker.com - ICANN Accredited Corporate Domain Management Services DomainSystems.com - Domain Sales & After-market Services CoolHandle.com - World Class Hosting and Email Solutions -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Goldstone Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 3:20 PM To: Paul Stahura Cc: Tim Ruiz; 'Bhavin Turakhia'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] Verisign batch pool advisory Paul, That's a fair point but you can't pound the batch pool any more than the connections you're given. So, if registrars would use the max, whatever that max is (10, 20, 100 connections), why don't Verisign simply keep the original number of connections and yes, increase their capabilities as they get more paying registrars on board? ie. why is this even a discussion? Will we be discussing whois usage next? Regards, ~Paul At 11:18 AM 10/6/2004 -0700, Paul Stahura wrote:
Paul
Even if VeriSign spent nearly an infinite amount of money on this problem (to "expand their capabilities"), and if we kept the status quo, then, because it costs very close to absolutely nothing to pound the crap out of the registry, all registrars would increase their registry pounding rates to the level that would immediately use up absolutely all the vast capabilities that the nearly infinite amount of money purchased. While at the same time, we would not register even one more name than we did with the system that did not have the vast capabilities.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Goldstone Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:00 AM To: Tim Ruiz Cc: 'Bhavin Turakhia'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] Verisign batch pool advisory
Tim,
Why should we be forced to go with one of their two choices? The only solution to this supposed issue is that Verisign should invest the positive revenue they earn from batch pool registrations into expanding their capabilities like other businesses do when sales increase. Why should we help pay for registry obligations unless they are also willing to help pay for registrar obligations?
It doesn't seem fair that they've been lowering the batch pool connections at the same time as launching their own drop name service.
On a related note, did anyone notice the following ICANN announcement from 9/21/04 on the "Expired Domain Deletion Policy"?: http://www.icann.org/registrars/eddp.htm
The way I read it, except for registrant renewal or extenuating circumstances as defined in 3.7.5.1 of the RRA, a registrar must cancel a registration at the end of the auto-renew grace period. ICANN basically expanded on the original ambiguous policy. That might ruffle a few feathers but it doesn't go into effect until 6/21/05 though. Any idea why there's such a long lead time?
Regards, ~Paul
At 10:22 AM 10/6/2004 -0500, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Bhavin,
The forgiveness component consists of two criteria:
1. Fewer than 350,000 names under management, and
2. A ratio of attempted add commands to successful add commands of less than 200 to 1.
So at least the top 20 or so registrars will still not qualify for forgiveness.
Tim
-----Original Message----- From: Bhavin Turakhia [mailto:bhavin.t@logicboxes.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 10:43 PM To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Bhavin Turakhia'; 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: RE: [registrars] Verisign batch pool advisory
So while option 1 may not be ideal either, for now, it will make the usefulness of the *phantom* registrars pretty much nil.
Also, with Network Solutions' and Tucows' intention to offer a secondary market service to registrants with expiring/deleting names, far less valuable names are going to actually hit the drop list anyway. So I think the future value of the batch pool is going to change dramatically.
My greater concern is that implementing 1 will result in a situation where icann will not meet its budget sinc everyone will match the forgiveness criteria.
Im still out on the road all of this week and will only be back in office after 2 weeks ..... And therefore will be a lil quiet :)
-B