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

[Chuck]

I want to request that any members who think there is value in the 'counter'
data element to please  answer Paul's question:  " So the utility of the
counter seems highly limited.  Does it even 
deliver the usefulness that its proponents want it to?"  Please share what
you think that value is on this list by Monday of next week.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 8:32 AM
To: Greg Aaron <gca at icginc.com>; Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>;
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agreement for Original Registration
Date

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


_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg