[gtld-tech] Registrar Expiration Date I-D
Luis E. Muñoz
lem at uniregistry.link
Fri Jan 22 17:18:11 UTC 2016
On 22 Jan 2016, at 2:35, Thomas Corte wrote:
> While, from a purist's standpoint, it seems entirely out of scope for
> registries, it does account for the fact that the end of the
> paid service period with the *registrar* is pretty much the *only*
> the registrant needs to know.
I see things a bit differently.
The issue at hand is that in essence, we have two completely separate
databases tracking the same object (the domain name) using (hopefully)
the same rules to ascertain its life-cycle and expose it to the public,
including the registrant.
IMO, the two databases operate in rough agreement most of the time
regarding the expiry date. Disagreement usually happens around the
auto-renew date because the two databases might very well update their
status at different times creating a window of inconsistency.
Nowadays, registrants go to either the registrar or the registry to
consult the expiration date — I would think that most go to the
registrar, where they’re seeing the “Registrar Expiration Date”
and probably leave happy knowing their domain is safe and sound for the
year they just were charged for.
The proposal calls for the registrar to send their version of the
expiration date so that the registry displays it. Of course, the update
itself will have some time delay in being processed — besides of being
an additional transformative operation, that will be coming at a time
separate from the moment the registry finishes processing the automatic
renewal. Basically we’re left in a worst place than we started. By
exposing both dates at the same place, all of a sudden the registrant is
made aware of a non-issue that she can do nothing about. This will
result in more tickets opened at both, registrars and registries,
claiming that the dates are different as well as unnecessary stress on
the registrants. The resolution of those tickets will likely be some
variation of “just wait a little and the dates will again magically
match. Thank you”, causing the impression that there is some sort of
confusion in the way the domain name is being managed by the registrar /
The inconsistency is a problem we have *today*, and by all means it
self-corrects. It’s a classical distributed systems problem with no
easy / perfect solution, by the way, simply because of the model we have
in place. Why do we want to expose and amplify the impact of this
non-issue by including third parties that cannot do anything to help
resolve the situation?
Again IMO, this does not improve things. We’re making an already
complex system, more complex while at the same time we all lose.
Director, Registry Operations
2161 San Joaquin Hills Road
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Office +1 949 706 2300 x 4242
lem at uniregistry.link
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the gtld-tech