Hi all, Works been a lil hectic - and I am gonna be out travelling most of the next 2-3 weeks. However here is one of the first agenda that needs our attention Verisign had sent out a batch pool Advisory note proposing two solutions for the batch pool as follows - 1. One measure would require registrars to keep automated batch pool processing within reasonable limits. Specifically, registrars would be required to not exceed a maximum ratio of total transactions for every successful transaction. <snip> 2. A second option we are considering is providing capacity to the batch pool on a fee basis, which would be available to all registrars. For a fixed monthly charge per single connection <snip> Both the above solutions in their current proposed form are very raw and their implications need to be studied in detail. For instance I can see several implications instantly * In case of option (1) the larger registrars have an advantage since they have a greater number of transactions * In case of option (2) companies with deeper pockets have an advantage, and more importantly this will lead to a status quo situation where noone will make money except verisign since everyone will be buying conections until it reaches a point where everyone is just abt covering their costs * if option (1) is adopted icann will fail to meet its budget since all registrars will be below the 1:200 ratio and therefore all of us will meet the forgiveness criteria laid out in the budget * there is other implications to aspects like - does this qualify as a registry service? etc I would like to be able to do the following - * I think we should send an email to Verisign asking them for some more time to draft out an official response from the constituency as well as have individual registrars who have not yet had the time to pen out their thoughts send them in. This is very important since none of us have had enuf time to respond to this and the constituency has not had enuf time to figure out a response either * I would like everyone to post their concerns about both the above solutiobns and any suggested modifications you may have for these * I would like to have people volunteer to form a small group to study all the implications and issues * I would like to have people assist in drafting out a response from the constituency's perspective. While I know we may not be able to achieve consensus since all of us may have different ideas, it is atleast important to pen down our collective concerns and see if we can figure out a solution or atleast bring to Verisign's attention the potential problems with these 2 solutions Ummm ..... I think thts all for now :) Help me get the ball rolling Best Regards Bhavin Turakhia Founder, CEO and Chairman DirectI -------------------------------------- http://www.directi.com Direct Line: +91 (22) 5679 7600 Direct Fax: +91 (22) 5679 7510 Board Line (USA): +1 (415) 240 4172 Board Line (India): +91 (22) 5679 7500 --------------------------------------
Bhavin, I was on the road all last week myself. But my understanding is that either 1 or 2 *will* be implemented. With the backlog of new registrars VeriSign needs to do something for the short term pretty quickly. Since for now, these are going to be our only choices, I would prefer to see 1 implemented. The reason is that I don't believe 2 will do anything to stop the tide of *phantom* accreditations just for the purpose of using the batch pool. There is too much money at stake for this option to be effective. 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. Tim -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bhavin Turakhia Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 1:57 PM To: 'Registrars Constituency' Subject: [registrars] Verisign batch pool advisory Hi all, Works been a lil hectic - and I am gonna be out travelling most of the next 2-3 weeks. However here is one of the first agenda that needs our attention Verisign had sent out a batch pool Advisory note proposing two solutions for the batch pool as follows - 1. One measure would require registrars to keep automated batch pool processing within reasonable limits. Specifically, registrars would be required to not exceed a maximum ratio of total transactions for every successful transaction. <snip> 2. A second option we are considering is providing capacity to the batch pool on a fee basis, which would be available to all registrars. For a fixed monthly charge per single connection <snip> Both the above solutions in their current proposed form are very raw and their implications need to be studied in detail. For instance I can see several implications instantly * In case of option (1) the larger registrars have an advantage since they have a greater number of transactions * In case of option (2) companies with deeper pockets have an advantage, and more importantly this will lead to a status quo situation where noone will make money except verisign since everyone will be buying conections until it reaches a point where everyone is just abt covering their costs * if option (1) is adopted icann will fail to meet its budget since all registrars will be below the 1:200 ratio and therefore all of us will meet the forgiveness criteria laid out in the budget * there is other implications to aspects like - does this qualify as a registry service? etc I would like to be able to do the following - * I think we should send an email to Verisign asking them for some more time to draft out an official response from the constituency as well as have individual registrars who have not yet had the time to pen out their thoughts send them in. This is very important since none of us have had enuf time to respond to this and the constituency has not had enuf time to figure out a response either * I would like everyone to post their concerns about both the above solutiobns and any suggested modifications you may have for these * I would like to have people volunteer to form a small group to study all the implications and issues * I would like to have people assist in drafting out a response from the constituency's perspective. While I know we may not be able to achieve consensus since all of us may have different ideas, it is atleast important to pen down our collective concerns and see if we can figure out a solution or atleast bring to Verisign's attention the potential problems with these 2 solutions Ummm ..... I think thts all for now :) Help me get the ball rolling Best Regards Bhavin Turakhia Founder, CEO and Chairman DirectI -------------------------------------- http://www.directi.com Direct Line: +91 (22) 5679 7600 Direct Fax: +91 (22) 5679 7510 Board Line (USA): +1 (415) 240 4172 Board Line (India): +91 (22) 5679 7500 --------------------------------------
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
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
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
First, I agree that we ought not to simply accept whichever options VeriSign proposes. If we as registrars can devise a legitimate counter-proposal, we should work hard to make VeriSign implement that solution. Having said that, though, it's probably not good enough to simply say "VeriSign should just suck it up and pay to upgrade their systems". As Paul Stahura points out, there may not be any amount of improvement that VeriSign could make that wouldn't be overwhelmed by increased traffic. We have a classic tragedy of the commons problem here: failed add commands in the batch pool are basically free, so registrars will perform an unlimited number of commands in their attempt to secure valuable dropping names. Neither VeriSign nor anyone else can create a system that's capable of handling an unlimited number of transactions, and until there's some reason for registrars to change this behavior, that's the challenge that they're facing. Moreover, as others have pointed out, the current trend lines will suck all of the profit out of the dropping names market anyway. In order to gain a short term increase in the likelihood to secure any given name, registrars will simply buy additional accreditations. Other registrars match by buying their own accreditations, until the revenue gained from these names is equal to or less the cost of all the accreditations. At that point, we have increased out own cost structure to the point there's no longer any profit, we've increased the cost structure of the registry by throwing more transactions at it, and essentially everyone is worse off except for the people we are paying incorporation fees to and possibly ICANN. So something needs to change. I'm not in favor of a new fee per connection. It helps the registry out, but is unlikely to change the dynamics of the batch pool in the short term and only increases the rate at which the business becomes unprofitable for registrars. So, of the options I've seen so far, the ratio of good transactions to bad seems like the least bad. As Tim points out, it's not ideal, but we don't have any other concrete ideas at this point. Jordyn On Oct 6, 2004, at 1:00 PM, Paul Goldstone wrote:
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
Everyone's entitled to their opinion but I think it IS okay to say Verisign should pay for their own upgrades. What was it that they or anyone else said that convinced you that we're obligated for this system upgrade? Why have we not been approached for other system upgrades or their new building etc.? BTW, while I'm thinking of it, has the Registrars Constituency ever considered a private mailing list specific to registrars? It's hard to post your thoughts when you know they're going out to everyone and their mother. Which is probably why there is so little discussion and when there is, between a select few. If there's already a list I don't know about, someone please let me know. ~Paul At 05:22 PM 10/6/2004 -0400, Jordyn A. Buchanan wrote:
First, I agree that we ought not to simply accept whichever options VeriSign proposes. If we as registrars can devise a legitimate counter-proposal, we should work hard to make VeriSign implement that solution.
Having said that, though, it's probably not good enough to simply say "VeriSign should just suck it up and pay to upgrade their systems". As Paul Stahura points out, there may not be any amount of improvement that VeriSign could make that wouldn't be overwhelmed by increased traffic. We have a classic tragedy of the commons problem here: failed add commands in the batch pool are basically free, so registrars will perform an unlimited number of commands in their attempt to secure valuable dropping names. Neither VeriSign nor anyone else can create a system that's capable of handling an unlimited number of transactions, and until there's some reason for registrars to change this behavior, that's the challenge that they're facing.
Moreover, as others have pointed out, the current trend lines will suck all of the profit out of the dropping names market anyway. In order to gain a short term increase in the likelihood to secure any given name, registrars will simply buy additional accreditations. Other registrars match by buying their own accreditations, until the revenue gained from these names is equal to or less the cost of all the accreditations. At that point, we have increased out own cost structure to the point there's no longer any profit, we've increased the cost structure of the registry by throwing more transactions at it, and essentially everyone is worse off except for the people we are paying incorporation fees to and possibly ICANN.
So something needs to change. I'm not in favor of a new fee per connection. It helps the registry out, but is unlikely to change the dynamics of the batch pool in the short term and only increases the rate at which the business becomes unprofitable for registrars. So, of the options I've seen so far, the ratio of good transactions to bad seems like the least bad. As Tim points out, it's not ideal, but we don't have any other concrete ideas at this point.
Jordyn
On Oct 6, 2004, at 1:00 PM, Paul Goldstone wrote:
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
The reason is that I don't believe 2 will do anything to stop the tide of *phantom* accreditations just for the purpose of using the batch pool. There is too much money at stake for this option to be effective.
Both prevent phantom accreditations as such ...... Majority phantom accreditations were from the players of the market who can now achieve the same with both the models Infact now the fact that verisign is taking so much time and the fact that netsol/tucows etc have a new model - that initself will prevent phantom accreditations
So while option 1 may not be ideal either, for now, it will make the usefulness of the *phantom* registrars pretty much nil.
Both models have their flaws ..... I would personally want to see the flaws rectified before adoption of either.
actually hit the drop list anyway. So I think the future value of the batch pool is going to change dramatically.
Has already changed :) .... Lol - B
Does anyone have the original email from Verisign? If so, could you please send it along? Thanks... Jim --On Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:26 AM +0530 Bhavin Turakhia <bhavin.t@directi.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Works been a lil hectic - and I am gonna be out travelling most of the next 2-3 weeks. However here is one of the first agenda that needs our attention
Verisign had sent out a batch pool Advisory note proposing two solutions for the batch pool as follows -
1. One measure would require registrars to keep automated batch pool processing within reasonable limits. Specifically, registrars would be required to not exceed a maximum ratio of total transactions for every successful transaction. <snip>
2. A second option we are considering is providing capacity to the batch pool on a fee basis, which would be available to all registrars. For a fixed monthly charge per single connection <snip>
Both the above solutions in their current proposed form are very raw and their implications need to be studied in detail. For instance I can see several implications instantly
* In case of option (1) the larger registrars have an advantage since they have a greater number of transactions
* In case of option (2) companies with deeper pockets have an advantage, and more importantly this will lead to a status quo situation where noone will make money except verisign since everyone will be buying conections until it reaches a point where everyone is just abt covering their costs
* if option (1) is adopted icann will fail to meet its budget since all registrars will be below the 1:200 ratio and therefore all of us will meet the forgiveness criteria laid out in the budget
* there is other implications to aspects like - does this qualify as a registry service? etc
I would like to be able to do the following -
* I think we should send an email to Verisign asking them for some more time to draft out an official response from the constituency as well as have individual registrars who have not yet had the time to pen out their thoughts send them in. This is very important since none of us have had enuf time to respond to this and the constituency has not had enuf time to figure out a response either
* I would like everyone to post their concerns about both the above solutiobns and any suggested modifications you may have for these
* I would like to have people volunteer to form a small group to study all the implications and issues
* I would like to have people assist in drafting out a response from the constituency's perspective. While I know we may not be able to achieve consensus since all of us may have different ideas, it is atleast important to pen down our collective concerns and see if we can figure out a solution or atleast bring to Verisign's attention the potential problems with these 2 solutions
Ummm ..... I think thts all for now :)
Help me get the ball rolling
Best Regards Bhavin Turakhia Founder, CEO and Chairman DirectI -------------------------------------- http://www.directi.com Direct Line: +91 (22) 5679 7600 Direct Fax: +91 (22) 5679 7510 Board Line (USA): +1 (415) 240 4172 Board Line (India): +91 (22) 5679 7500 --------------------------------------
participants (6)
-
Bhavin Turakhia -
Bhavin Turakhia -
Jim Archer -
Jordyn A. Buchanan -
Paul Goldstone -
Tim Ruiz