Harking back to a discussion that we all had last week, we at SnapNames think we've gotten to the bottom of the grace-period deletes, and if we understand TUCOWS' explanation correctly, then our conclusion that TUCOWS deleted many names in the days after August 30, 2001 is not accurate. Much of the following will also be published in the upcoming edition of State of the Domain (for free subscription send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]):
In mid-August, VeriSign Global Registry announced it would be batch-purging a list of names whose purgation had been suspended for some weeks. That list ultimately grew to include 160,000 names. The only names whose purge had been thus suspended by the Registry were legacy deletes, or names deleted by registrars after the 45-day grace period for registrant renewal. The Registry's announcement made clear that the batch-purge would include names "delet[ed] by registrars outside of [their] grace periods." Not all names' deletions were suspended. Indeed, during the entire suspension process, other registrars were still deleting names within the 45-day period, and the Registry was purging those names instantly. We registered several names per day for customer SnapBack(tm) back-orders during this period. When we checked the Registry's logs after the batch-purge on August 30, we found that about 7900 names appeared of record at TUCOWS, indicating they had been registered by TUCOWS that day. The next time we checked, a few weeks later, about 7500 of those names were no longer listed at TUCOWS. What had happened? We concluded there were only two explanations: One, TUCOWS had been (as we now know they actually were) the original registrar of the 7900 names - even before the August 30 batch-purge -- but the Registry's update was sufficiently delayed that when we looked at the end of the day on August 30 we were still looking at slightly outdated information - like looking at the light of a distant star, which leads us to believe in the existence of an object that may have blown up a half-billion years ago. But if TUCOWS had been the original registrar of those 7900 names, then TUCOWS would be guilty of exactly what it has often complained of other registrars doing: deleting names beyond the 45-day grace period. On the basis of TUCOWS' repeated representations that it always deletes expired names within 45 days after their expiration, we decided upon Option 2: Two, TUCOWS had not been the original registrar of those names and, instead, was the current registrar of record for their re-registration, as suggested by the Registry's logs. In that case, the 7500 that were missing from the same logs a few weeks later must have been deleted during the 5-day period allowed for deletions. This we reported as the probable explanation. Little did we know that there was, as certain presidents and prime ministers insisted in the mid-1990s, "a third way." According to TUCOWS, VeriSign Registry had told TUCOWS there was a leap year bug associated with a number of TUCOWS' domain names. In order to freeze the problem pending a fix, TUCOWS tells us, VeriSign Registry locked the names down. When TUCOWS tried to delete the names 41 days after their expiration, as is the company's policy, according to a TUCOWS representative, the delete command failed. Instead, the Registry appears to have included these on-hold names in the batch-purge on August 30, 2001, which was only supposed to have included names deleted after the 45-day grace period. So if TUCOWS' information is correct, then the names that appeared to have been registered there one minute, and not registered there the next, were in reality names deleted in a highly unusual fashion and then viewed at the Registry through a delayed lens. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Connecting Registrars and their Customers to the Secondary Market in Domain Names -----Original Message----- From: Scott Allan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 6:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Grace period domains deletion Yup - We were scratching our heads as well on this stat - we are investigating, with the going assumption (mine anyways) being the SN logic (and therefore data) is flawed. If we are wrong, we will post... sA At 09:40 AM 11/5/01 -0500, Charles Daminato wrote: >*shrug* I'd be speculating if I knew - I'd suppose they'd use a variety >of sources, such as zone file crunching, some whois polling for minor >verification, maybe star gazing and intestine stirring. > >Honestly, I really don't know - we actually find this number to be quite >high ourselves (excessively so) > >Charles Daminato >TUCOWS Product Manager >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Joel Moss wrote: > > > OK, thanks for clarifying that Chuck. Where exactly do Snapnames get > their data from? > > > > Joel Moss > > Online Networks > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > =========================== > > http://homepagenames.com > > http://homepagetools.com > > =========================== > > tel/fax: (44) 1257 794911 > > icq: 69715613 > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Charles Daminato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Joel Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: "����������" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 2:25 PM > > Subject: Re: Grace period domains deletion > > > > > > > We're assuming, of course, that SnapNames numbers are accurate to any > > > degree. Yes, we allow the occasional deletion (we're not monsters over > > > here) but we do ask you to ensure that when a domain is submitted, that > > > it's correct and paid for. Sometimes mistakes happen, sometimes we > delete > > > domains. > > > > > > Even then, if this number IS accurate (let's just suppose) then it > > > accounts for less than .25% of our total registrations (give or take) and > > > is quite a low number (hrm...) > > > > > > Still, I think the methodology used by snapnames (because they don't have > > > access to registry data, and are extrapolating in some manner or another) > > > is incorrect. > > > > > > Charles Daminato > > > TUCOWS Product Manager > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Joel Moss wrote: > > > > > > > He's got a point there! Can anyone at Tucows explain that one? > > > > > > > > Joel Moss > > > > Online Networks > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > =========================== > > > > http://homepagenames.com > > > > http://homepagetools.com > > > > =========================== > > > > tel/fax: (44) 1257 794911 > > > > icq: 69715613 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: ���������� > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 1:26 PM > > > > Subject: Re: Grace period domains deletion > > > > > > > > > > > > what i don't get is why if it is true snapnames reported > > > > > > > > > TUCOWS/OpenSRS 7,576 > > > > > > > > with the second most domain deletions of all registrars when > resellers are NOT allowed to delete domains? > > > > > > > > am i missing something? > > > > > > > > i really hate calling customers who mispelled their name or > accidently registered the domain years for 10 instead of 1(usually > > happens cause of accidently rolling the rolling thingie on mouse's) and > tell them they can't cancel their domain because TUCOWs does > > not allow it. most ICANN accredited registars allow deletions which > pisses many customers off arguing why we can't do it for them > > but some other site X can. but i really didn't give it much thought > thinking TUCOWs was not allowing deletions... but from the > > snapnames report it would seem TUCOWS was actually deleting *MUCH* MORE > domains then other registrars, while telling most(?) > > resellers that deletions were not allowed > > > > > > > > someone plz explain? > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > ���� ���: JoelMoss > > > > �� ���: �ڿ뱸 > > > > ���� ��¥: 2001�� 11�� 5�� ������ ���� 8:34 > > > > ����: Re: Grace period domains deletion > > > > > > > > > > > > I maybe presuming here, but if Tucows is supposed to offer > deletions within the 5 day grace period to registrants, then surely > > that > > > > > > > > feature must then be extended to its resellers (us)! I seem to > remember something being mentioned about this a while back, but > > from > > > > > > > > what I see, nothing became of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to officially request that resellers be allowed to > send as many deletion requests as we need to Tucows within the 5 > > day > > > > > > > > grace period, as trhis is effectively what ICANN say they must > allow, yet TUCOWS only allows us one deletion - ever!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Joel Moss > > > > > > > > Online Networks > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > =========================== > > > > > > > > http://homepagenames.com > > > > > > > > http://homepagetools.com > > > > > > > > =========================== > > > > > > > > tel/fax: (44) 1257 794911 > > > > > > > > icq: 69715613 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > From: "Sergei Kolodka" > > > > > > > > To: > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 9:28 PM > > > > > > > > Subject: Grace period domains deletion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello discuss-list, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cite from "Editorial Update: State of the Domain, > > > > > > > > > Third Quarter 2001" by SnapNames: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The following lists the number of names in this group > > > > > > > > > that had been registered and canceled within the five > > > > > > > > > day grace period at the most affected registrars: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VeriSign Registrar 12,340 > > > > > > > > > TUCOWS/OpenSRS 7,576 > > > > > > > > > Register.com 2,322 > > > > > > > > > DotRegistrar 731 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am i missed something and domain deletions within > > > > > > > > > grace period now part of OpenSRS API ? > > > > > > > > > Or SnapNames wrong in digits ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > Sergei Kolodka > > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott Allan Director OpenSRS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
