Cameron, It is my understanding that any domain name deleted within the 5 day grace period is released into the namespace immediately, not during some drop cycle, so I'm wondering how you account for these names?
Charles Daminato TUCOWS Product Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Cameron Powell wrote: > You variously write: > > 1. So for those following along, "deleted" does not specifically mean the > domain was deleted during the five day grace period or even by an > explicit delete during its registration term. "Deleted" domains could > mean a domain that was not renewed at the end of its registration term. > > **This is not actually correct. All 160,000 names were deleted, as > announced by the Registry. During the purge cycle there is no ability to > renew. Moreover, since these were NSI batch-deletes, none were OpenSRS > names in the first place, and could not have been renewed by or through > OpenSRS. Relatedly . . . > > 2. Thanks for the quick public response, but let me make sure I have this > straight: > > Out of "40,000 names distributed among numerous registrars" registered > around August 30, Verisign has deleted 12,340, Tucows has deleted 7,576, > Register.com has deleted 2,322, and Dotregistrar has deleted 731? > > My not totally unexpected reaction is to ask if any of the 40,000 has > survived? > > **Of the 40,000 names subsequently registered, 25,000 were deleted within > the 5-day grace period. 15,000 made it upstream safely. > > 3. I have to assume that when you say you "query the Registry," you are > doing > a live lookup through one of your affiliate registrars, and when you check > for the identity of the registrar, you are doing a whois lookup. (please > correct me if I'm wrong). > > **We queried the Registry directly through its port 43. We also find there > the identity of the registrar in the thin WHOIS. > > **Again, well over 7000 names were listed at the Registry as having been > re-registered by OpenSRS shortly after their deletion by NSI and their purge > by the Registry. A month later, around 7500 of those names were no longer > registered at OpenSRS, and therefore had been deleted. We're not making > subtle data interpretations or analyses here, simply straightforward > observations. > > > > 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: Russ Goodwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 2:56 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Cameron Powell > Subject: RE: Grace period domains deletion > > > Thank you for your helpful response, Cameron. > > I have to assume that when you say you "query the Registry," you are doing > a live lookup through one of your affiliate registrars, and when you check > for the identity of the registrar, you are doing a whois lookup. (please > correct me if I'm wrong). > > > To the list: > The idea that an elite few could be ordering thousands of deletes in the > OpenSRS system is intriguing. I have always found SnapNames data to be > credible (though I can't verify this one on my own - can anyone else?) and > at the same time gladly take sA at his word when he shrugs. So... does > anyone care to speculate on where the hole is? (aside from the obvious > error here, error there, or man-on-the-inside conspiracies) > > -Russ > > > > At 04:46 PM 11/5/2001, Cameron Powell wrote: > >Okay, Russ, I am hereby summoned. Here's where the numbers come from: > > > >pre-August 30, 2001: VRSN Registry releases a master list of all 160,000 > >names that will be deleted on August 30. > > > >August 30, 2001 and aftermath: We query the Registry on all 160,000 names > >and learn whether they have been registered, and if so, at which registrar. > >These figures total 40,000 names distributed among numerous registrars. > > > >Last week: We query the Registry again on the 40,000 names and find that > >many are no longer registered. Large deltas between August 30 and last > week > >are contained in our recent State of the Domain update. > > > >Because this is a very straightforward technique, and involves no > >statistical sampling, we're not able to see how the numbers could be > >anything but quite accurate, to within a few percentage points margin of > >error (because sometimes the Registry wouldn't answer repeated queries, and > >eventually, after getting 99% answers to queries, we gave up and moved on). > >If anyone can find errors in this logic, we welcome your pointing them out > >to us. > > > >For the record, we don't think there's anything wrong with 5-day deletions. > >Our concern, rather, was with the questionable *registrations* that precede > >them -- registrations intended to test the value of a name but that might > at > >times have the effect of causing others, who might wish to put the name to > >use, to think that it won't be available for another year or more. > > > > > >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: Russ Goodwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 11:52 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: Grace period domains deletion > > > > > >Well, Cameron Powell is on (or reads and posts) this list from time to > time. > > > >He's the GC at SnapNames and ought to be able to craft an adequate > >explanation... so: poke poke Cameron, where do the numbers come from? :-) > > > >(no animosity intended, and sorry if this is a repeat - the Jim Fleming > >posts triggered a 3-day delete of this list on my end) > > > >-Russ > > > > > >At 09:56 AM 11/5/2001, Scott Allan wrote: > > >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] > > > >
