Home / Blogs

Advocating Ratio Model for Deleting Domains

To date, end-users (of all levels of technical ability) who are trying to find a good domain name to establish an online identity have been endlessly frustrated by the lack of a method to fairly re-allocate "used" domain names. A full resolution to that problem is a separate (and much bigger) discussion.

For now, there's a critical issue with how all of us—registrars, and companies like SnapNames and its competitors—utilize registrar-registry connections to query and catch domains deleting into availability. Some parties have exploited loopholes in ICANN requirements to form hundreds of shell accreditations—that is, registrars utilized solely for their batch pool access. These shadow registrars have been harnessed into large thread farms, fundamentally undermining any principal of equivalent access (ironically, the basis of a recent Pool.com v. VeriSign lawsuit) by legitimate registrars.

Obviously, this is not healthy for the industry.

In response, VeriSign has proposed changes to how it allocates access to deleting domains. The current method was, after all, implemented as a temporary solution. Their proposal for a "ratio method" of allocating access is the only thing that makes sense given the industry's current state of development and the market forces currently at play. It's a fundamentally fair move that rewards customer-centered behavior, and helps insulate against ever-escalating add-storms and ever shrinking per-registrar capability at the registry.

As many have noted, no solution seems perfect, but a change must be made, and be made as soon as possible.

The fairest approach in the short term is to scale access to deleting domains in proportion to primary market activity. To be more specific, we support calculation of the ratio based on the number of successful transactions performed across all connection pools, and that the ratio be used to limit a registrar's failed transactions.

Registrars who generate primary market transaction volume are skilled at selling to and supporting registrants. They are the companies that registrants choose to do business with—as opposed to those who are gaining customers purely by chance through the drop catching game.

We support the ratio method despite the fact that our own capabilities to capture deleting domains are likely to be more harmed than helped. We support it because we believe this creates the most fair and level playing field for all, limits gaming opportunities, and curbs the most egregious abuses.

We urge our industry colleagues to address this critical issue in this manner now so we can more appropriately focus on the longer-term question, about how to best serve customers in the secondary market.

By Ray King, President & CEO

Related topics: DNS, Domain Names, ICANN

Get a weekly summary of postings to CircleID:

 Master Feed (more feeds)      Twitter      Mobile
Bookmark / Email This Post

Comments

Re: Advocating Ratio Model for Deleting Domains DomainPawnshop  –  Oct 15, 2005 10:23 AM PDT

Any domain name that has expired and exceeded any redemption period should be deleted. No one has a superior right to registration of that name.

If registrars want to set up a seperate business to capture (register) expired domains, fine - but that's not their function. The way registrars are currently trampling te process is a violation of the fiduciary responsibilities with which they are entrusted.

The original SnapNames model was most appropriate; they offered any individual their services on any name, saying only that they would try their damnedest to register it if it were deleted.

Now, the registries act as though they have some right to any name they are paid to register, and then pit interested registrants against each other in auctions to see which registrant they will favor for the domain.  There is absolutely no legal or regulatory basis for this extortionist activity.

To post comments, please login or create an account.

Related Blogs

Domain Registrars & Registries: Don't Say You Weren't Warned

EoWhy?

Perspectives on a DNS-CERT

"Thin Brand Line" Breaks as Canon Announces Plans for .CANON

EI, EI - NO!

Related News

Other Topics

Access Providers Broadband Censorship Cloud Computing Cyberattack Cybercrime Cybersquatting Data Center DNS DNSSEC Domain Names Domain Registries Email Enum ICANN Internet Governance Internet Protocol IP Addressing IPTV IPv6 Law Malware Mobile Multilinguism Net Neutrality P2P Policy & Regulation Privacy Regional Registries Security Spam Telecom Top-Level Domains VoIP Web White Space Whois Wireless



Industry Updates – Sponsored Posts

.ORG, The Public Interest Registry Celebrates Its 25th Year With 8 Million Registrations

MarkMonitor Year in Review Report: How Escalating Online Brand Abuse is Used to Monetize Web Traffic

.ORG: Introducing Fully Internationalized Domain Names

.ORG to Fully Deploy DNSSEC in June

The GLOBE Program Chooses Dyn Inc.'s Dynect Platform to Deploy DNSSEC per Federal OMB Mandate

SPECIAL: Updates from the ICANN Meetings in Nairobi

.ORG Registrations in 2009 Grew 8.4 Percent Over Previous Year

MarkMonitor Sets New Standard in Brand Protection with Site Staydown Service

Announcement: dotMobi Ownership

Afilias Limited Acquires .Mobi Domain Registry, Expands Market Leadership

ICANN and Cybersecurity: Hot Topics at The First Ever .ORG Forum

Using .ORG Directory to Find Haiti Relief Organizations

Neustar Releases UltraDNS Report Center

Afilias Releases .INFO Domain 2009 Annual Report

Expressions of Interest a Requirement for New gTLDs?

Neustar Implements DNS Security Extensions in the .US Registry

Neustar Launches Initiative to Enhance DNS With Faster, More Secure Updates

Registry Stakeholder Group Comments on Latest ICANN Policies

Open Phishing Season

dotMobi Is Now a Member of The LACTLD