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.
On Mon, 5 Nov 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] > > >
