Would the scenarios be different from the following:?
1. Registrar A pings the registry at 2p.m. to get a name, waits 5 (or 15 or
a random number of) minutes, then pounds the Registry to get the name.
Unless Registrar B had tried once, too, in which case the waiting clock gets
reset, and yet now another registrar is pounding. Meanwhile, Registrar C
has started . . . and so on. Leading to:
2. Names are indefinitely delayed and don't drop because no one has stopped
pinging for the requisite time.
3. Customers still don't have first-come first-served or other equal
access, at a reasonable and fixed price (like a parallel registry), but
rather have access according to the monied relationships they can strike up
with registrars who speak their language.
In my limited opinion, it's not registrars or resellers who ultimately have
rights to connections/names, but customers. Accordingly, registrars and
resellers who can attract the customers should get the connections to serve
them. Any other basis of distribution makes behind-the-scenes access and
non-transparent relationships the primary criteria.
Cameron Powell
VP of Business Development and General Counsel
SnapNames
115 NW First Avenue
Suite 300
Portland, OR 97209
(503) 219-9990 x229
(503) 274-9749 fax
cameronp@snapnames.com
Connecting Registrars and their Customers to the Secondary Market in Domain
Names
-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Cook [mailto:dcook@9netweb.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 2:51 PM
To: discuss-list@opensrs.org
Subject: Re: [No Registry Agents Available...]
This is the perfect solution to the problem.
There is no need for any snapname gimicks
At 04:38 PM 8/30/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Earlier I suggested a solution which would remove all incentive for
>hammering the registry. Drop any name, at any time of the day or night,
but
>wait until it has been 5 minutes (or some other appropriate delay) since
>anyone has tried to register it. Everyone would have an equal chance, and
>those who try too often would never be rewarded.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Loren Stocker" <loren@800.net>
>To: "Robert L Mathews" <lists@tigertech.com>
>Cc: <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 3:54 PM
>Subject: Re: [No Registry Agents Available...]
>
>
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> > Not a stupid idea at all. I've suggested this myself, only I don't think
>you
> > need to wait more than 15 minutes unless you drop them all at once like
>they
> > may have today (24 hours might be necessary after this mess!).
> >
> > The fact is that the great domains are snapped up within miliseconds --
>the
> > leftovers could then be released for general consumption.
> >
> > The other issue is dropping as many as they did all at once. Verisign is
> > ASKING for it.
> >
> > Best, Loren
> >
> >
> > Robert L Mathews <lists@tigertech.com> wrote:
> > I note that Verisign's new system to prevent hammering of the registry
> > during drops wasn't working around 2:15 EDT:
> >
> > No Registry Agents to service domain: [rfertefdfs.com]
> >
> > Although I can't tell who has all the connections, this makes me even
> > more suspicious of domain back-ordering services that open many
> > connections. Obviously some registrars are doing automated batch
> > processing in the overflow pool (which is supposedly not allowed), and
> > some OpenSRS resellers are hammering OpenSRS (since the guaranteed
> > OpenSRS pool is full).
> >
> > Can I ask what OpenSRS is doing to solve the latter problem of OpenSRS
> > resellers using too many connections? If resellers do more than a
certain
> > number of lookups in a given time period, are subsequent lookups
> > restricted to the registry automated batch pool for a while? (They
should
> > be.)
> >
> > BTW, here's my (probably stupid) idea to solve the registry problem: for
> > the first 24 hours after a name is released, it should only be able to
be
> > registered through the automated pool, and not the guaranteed or
overflow
> > pools. Then the feeding frenzy would occur only in the automated pool.
> > The next day, the domains could be registered through any pool. In this
> > scenario, registrars would allow speculators to set a flag saying they
> > want to try the automated pool, and speculators could have at it...
while
> > the rest of us would have normal connections.
> >
> > Even better would be some sort of first-come, first-served back ordering
> > system, implemented by the registry, as someone else described. Not
> > likely in the near future, I guess.
> >
> > --
> > Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:36:39 EDT