[registrars] Verisign batch pool advisory

[Paul Goldstone]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion but I think it IS okay to say 
Verisign should pay for their own upgrades.  What was it that they or 
anyone else said that convinced you that we're obligated for this 
system upgrade?  Why have we not been approached for other system 
upgrades or their new building etc.?

BTW, while I'm thinking of it, has the Registrars Constituency ever 
considered a private mailing list specific to registrars?  It's hard 
to post your thoughts when you know they're going out to everyone and 
their mother.  Which is probably why there is so little discussion and 
when there is, between a select few.  If there's already a list I 
don't know about, someone please let me know.

~Paul

At 05:22 PM 10/6/2004 -0400, Jordyn A. Buchanan wrote:
>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