[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agreement for Original Registration Date

[Paul Keating]

And what is the intended purpose sought to be achieved?

On 9/21/17, 5:15 PM, "Greg Aaron" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org on
behalf of gca at icginc.com> wrote:

>The upshot is that the counter would probably start at "Unknown" for all
>existing domains. 
>* Once implemented, the feature has little usefulness until years in the
>future, when some domains get re-registered and those strings accumulate
>some history.  
>* But many domains get renewed year after year.  Those wouldn't
>accumulate counter history, and would be set to Unknown either forever,
>or for long periods if they are ever allowed to expire and if they are
>then re-registered.  This is a significant portion of domains.  For
>example .COM has an renewal rate of around 72%.
>
>So the utility of the counter seems highly limited.  Does it even deliver
>the usefulness that its proponents want it to?
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>[mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
>Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 10:49 AM
>To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agreement for Original
>Registration Date
>
>On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Greg Aaron wrote:
>> The alternate proposal is a simple marker that says whether there has
>>been a known previous iteration of the domain string, having been
>>registered with a different ROID.
>> 
>
>Or a counter, of course, rather than just the marker.  From the point of
>view of implementation in a database, I think these two options are
>approximately the same, so I prefer the counter because it provides an
>additional bit of data (that is, that the domain is changing -- you can
>watch it happen). 
>
>> And it still presents the same operational problem: the registry has to
>>figure out whether a string has existed before.  That is something
>>registries are not designed to do.  And they may not have the necessary
>>historical records.  See the notes below.
>> 
>
>Well, no, that's part of the point of the new proposal: the registry
>_doesn't_ have to figure that out, because the counter can be set to
>"unknown" (in a SQL database, you'd probably use NULL).  To support this
>feature, however, the registry would have to track deletions of domain
>names in the future.  So it wouldn't be free, but it also wouldn't be
>hard to implement.  (Any real SQL database, for instance, could do this
>with an ON DELETE trigger.)
>
>Best regards,
>
>A
>
>--
>Andrew Sullivan
>ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg