Yeah - I would say add that it would be irresponsible to infer that *no
one* has enough time and motivation to pursue this. From experience, I am
always surprise at the lengths some people will go for some things!
sA
At 12:23 PM 8/16/01 -0400, Ken Joy wrote:
>But otherwise, no deterrant at all.
>
>Ken
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Charles Daminato
> > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:02 PM
> > To: Jack Broughton
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: Verisign Temporarily Discontinues Drops
> >
> >
> > Jack (et al)
> >
> > Deterrent? There is a significant investment to become
> > accredited - I don't
> > think one that could be paid for by dealing in the speculation
> > market. The
> > extra connections and bandwidth you'd get wouldn't warrant you the names
> > required to make it a fruitful venture.
> >
> > Charles Daminato
> > OpenSRS Product Manager
> > Tucows Inc. - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jack Broughton
> > > Sent: August 16, 2001 11:45 AM
> > > To: Charles Daminato
> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: Verisign Temporarily Discontinues Drops
> > >
> > >
> > > Here's a question that the powers that be at OpenSRS could answer.
> > >
> > > How big a deterrent is there, if Verisign were to impose rate-limiting
> > > technology that is, for a given Registrar to setup other registrars
> > > authorized as separate entities (different names etc.) with Verisign
> > > such that they could aggregate their connection sockets to the
> > > registration system and in essence garner a larger playing field than
> > > single connection set registrars?
> > >
> > > I'm assuming there's a big dollar investment to become and accredited
> > > registrar or some other such detterent making this approach turn into an
> > > unviable business case? If there isn't of course they'd need to take
> > > steps to ensure that registrars don't setup dummy clones of themselves.
> > >
> > > Jack Broughton
> > > CanTech Solutions
> > >
> > > Charles Daminato wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Colin (et al...)
> > > >
> > > > a) Dropping names randomly may only entice the 'naughty' registrars to
> > > > hammer the registry ALL the time. Bad solution...
> > > >
> > > > b) I agree, whole heartedly, with every fiber of my soul.
> > There's gotta
> > > > be a breach there somewhere....
> > > >
> > > > Anyone heard of rate-limiting technology? We have it - works
> > > MOST of the
> > > > time ;)
> > > >
> > > > Charles Daminato
> > > > TUCOWS Product Manager
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Colin Viebrock wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > VeriSign Global Registry Services (VeriSign GRS), after
> > consultation
> > > > > > with ICANN, will temporarily cease batch releases of
> > > deleted com, .net
> > > > > > and ..org domain names to assure continued service quality
> > > within the
> > > > > > Shared Registration System (SRS).
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, that's the stupidest solution I've ever heard.
> > Bravo, Verisign.
> > > > >
> > > > > Did anyone consider the following ideas:
> > > > >
> > > > > a) drop domains sometime during a random window of time,
> > > instead of at the
> > > > > same time each day?
> > > > >
> > > > > b) contacting the registrars who you know to be abusing the
> > system and
> > > > > either telling them to stop, or revoking their access?
> > > > >
> > > > > Either of these ideas would solve your problem, and are far
> > > more equitable
> > > > > to the entire registrar and registrant community than your
> > half-baked
> > > > > knee-jerk
> > > > > reaction.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Colin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> >
Scott Allan
Director OpenSRS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
