[registrars] Verisign batch pool advisory

[Jordyn A. Buchanan]

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 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
>