[registrars] Verisign batch pool advisory

[Monte Cahn]

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 at Moniker.com
Monte at 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 at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at 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 at gnso.icann.org
>[mailto:owner-registrars at 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 at 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