Hi Duane, What's perfect about a race that never end? I understand this noble concept, but in pratice the good domains would never drop. Any solution that invokes massive uncertainity results in unnecessary effort. At least we now know what's done is done. I only got a few of the domains I wanted, but it's over! And, I didn't need to get up at 3:30 am, Pacific. Best, Loren Duane Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Robert L Mathews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > > > >
