At 1/5/02 1:47 AM, William X Walsh wrote: >It's quite easy, actually. But to make it work, the dropped names >need to be placed as available on a completely different system, >hosted on a completely separate network connection. Make the system >completely independent, and the issue of dropped domains will not >effect the registration of other names, at all. Registrars like >OpenSRS who provide access to the dropped names system would need to >do a similar setup on their end, allowing access to the dropped names >system only thought a completely and totally independent system.
That doesn't answer my question of how you "avoid crushing speculation and mysterious shenanigans" when demand vastly outstrips supply for expiring domains. You've merely moved the problem elsewhere. Sure, it fixes a side-effect of the problem by making the problem not interfere with new registrations any more, and I agree that would be a welcome improvement. However, it doesn't solve the problem wherein the registry can't possibly keep up with demand for expiring names. An auction system for expiring names may not be perfect, but at least it does actually eliminate the problem. >As for the new TLDs, their problems were more tied to them trying to >AVOID first come first served. If they stuck to that simple process, >the problems would have been minimal, and easy to solve. The solution you mentioned moves all the registry hammering to a different place. But with a new TLD introduction, there is no separate place to put it, so it would do nothing to help. I can't believe I, of all people, am having to defend capitalist dogma, but the problem to me seems right out of Economics 101: you simply can't sell something worth hundreds of thousands of dollars for six dollars and not expect chaos, no matter what rules you put in place. If you tried it offline, there would be riots. We're just seeing the online equivalent. -- Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies
