[registrars] Verisign batch pool advisory

[Jim Archer]

Does anyone have the original email from Verisign?    If so, could you 
please send it along?

Thanks...

Jim

--On Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:26 AM +0530 Bhavin Turakhia 
<bhavin.t at directi.com> wrote:

>
> Hi all,
>
> Works been a lil hectic - and I am gonna be out travelling most of the
> next 2-3 weeks. However here is one of the first agenda that needs our
> attention
>
> Verisign had sent out a batch pool Advisory note proposing two solutions
> for the batch pool as follows -
>
> 1.	One measure would require registrars to keep automated batch pool
> processing within reasonable limits.  Specifically, registrars would be
> required to not exceed a maximum ratio of total transactions for every
> successful transaction. <snip>
>
> 2.	A second option we are considering is providing capacity to the
> batch pool on a fee basis, which would be available to all registrars.
> For a fixed monthly charge per single connection <snip>
>
> Both the above solutions in their current proposed form are very raw and
> their implications need to be studied in detail. For instance I can see
> several implications instantly
>
> * In case of option (1) the larger registrars have an advantage since they
> have a greater number of transactions
>
> * In case of option (2) companies with deeper pockets have an advantage,
> and more importantly this will lead to a status quo situation where noone
> will make money except verisign since everyone will be buying conections
> until it reaches a point where everyone is just abt covering their costs
>
> * if option (1) is adopted icann will fail to meet its budget since all
> registrars will be below the 1:200 ratio and therefore all of us will meet
> the forgiveness criteria laid out in the budget
>
> * there is other implications to aspects like - does this qualify as a
> registry service? etc
>
>
> I would like to be able to do the following -
>
> * I think we should send an email to Verisign asking them for some more
> time to draft out an official response from the constituency as well as
> have individual registrars who have not yet had the time to pen out their
> thoughts send them in. This is very important since none of us have had
> enuf time to respond to this and the constituency has not had enuf time
> to figure out a response either
>
> * I would like everyone to post their concerns about both the above
> solutiobns and any suggested modifications you may have for these
>
> * I would like to have people volunteer to form a small group to study all
> the implications and issues
>
> * I would like to have people assist in drafting out a response from the
> constituency's perspective. While I know we may not be able to achieve
> consensus since all of us may have different ideas, it is atleast
> important to pen down our collective concerns and see if we can figure
> out a solution or atleast bring to Verisign's attention the potential
> problems with these 2 solutions
>
> Ummm ..... I think thts all for now :)
>
> Help me get the ball rolling
>
> Best Regards
> Bhavin Turakhia
> Founder, CEO and Chairman
> DirectI
> --------------------------------------
> http://www.directi.com
> Direct Line: +91 (22) 5679 7600
> Direct Fax: +91 (22) 5679 7510
> Board Line (USA): +1 (415) 240 4172
> Board Line (India): +91 (22) 5679 7500
> --------------------------------------
>