RE: [DNS] Generic Rigged?

RE: [DNS] Generic Rigged?

From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin§>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 16:31:23 +1000
Hello Chris,

Thanks for that response.

I would like to remind the community that the whole registrar/registry
system is still very new.  We have new registrars and a new registry
operator.  Most significant technical systems take at least 6 months to bed
down.  We have currently been in operation since 1 July 2002.  We are all
still learning how to operate in this environment.

Instead of assuming a process such as generics is rigged, it would be
appropriate to acknowledge that there are still teething problems for all
parties, and we are working together to resolve them.  The popularity of
generics names means that there will always be winners and losers.  The gtld
environment has tried a range of approaches to handle the rush on new names
- the simple answer is that none are ideal - every system can be gamed.
The generics rush process is fairer than most.  In the ideal scenario you
are simply entering a gaming style system where your probability of
receiving the name is directly proportional to the number of people that
want that particular name.  If we kept having such rushes for names, all
players would eventually settle on a stable approach with that result.  Not
long ago, the .biz registry released a set of popular names, and most
registrars ended up with an equal proportion of those names.  The tiny
registrars had a windfall as they were used for their bandwidth to the
registry, and the large registrars suffered a loss as only a tiny fraction
of their normal number of names registered in a day were obtained.  Remember
that this is the first time since 1 July 2002 that the AusRegistry has
experienced such a sudden load - the corresponding .com registry has been
getting this load at least once a week since large numbers of domains have
been deleted in recent months.

While I have identified technical deficiencies with AusRegistry's systems
since 1 July 2002, I have also experienced a strong willingness to correct
these deficiencies when they are pointed out with methodical technical
evidence.  Likewise Melbourne IT's systems have also had some deficiencies
and we try to correct these as soon as they are identified.
Melbourne IT has a good working relationship with AusRegistry.

Using a public forum to expose any little deficiency is not helpful at this
stage, and I think auDA is taking the right response and dealing with
registrars and the registry operator separately.  A more productive
environment allows players to share information privately to quickly resolve
the problem, rather than try to cover up deficiencies for fear of legal
action.  Where there is clear malicious intent or continued transgression,
then I would expect a more public escalation.

Bruce Tonkin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo&#167;]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 11:40 AM
> To: dns&#167;
> Subject: RE: [DNS] FW: [DNS] Generic Rigged?
> auDA has investigated or is investigating all matters tat have been
> brought to its attention regarding the generic release. This includes
> complaints against registrants and registrars. All matters are dealt
> with between the individual registrant or registrar and auDA. If auDA
> considers it appropriate to make a public statement about any of these
> matters it will do so. 
> Regards,
> Chris Disspain
> CEO - auDA
> ceo&#167;
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:06 UTC