> From: David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names > Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 17:33:08 -0700 > > > On Apr 2, 2007, at 4:56 PM, Douglas Otis wrote: > > The recommendation was for registries to provide a preview of the > > next day's zone. > > I think this might be a bit in conflict with efforts registries have > to reduce the turnaround in zone modification to the order of tens of > minutes.
This is getting far afield from 'network operations', but the underlying issue is really quite simple: There are *NO*PENALTIES* for registering 'bogus' domains. The registry operator has -no- (financial) incentive to investigate, nor remove, a 'falsified' entry. Once a name is in the database, _anything_ affecting it is an 'un-necessary expense' to the registry operator. Similarly, there is no dis-incentive to a registrar wih regard to _filing_ a bogus registration with a registry. Address _these_ issues, and the domain names "problem" will effectively disappear. One _possible_ approach to dealing with the problem: 1) registry includes in it's contract with registrars a (non-trivial) $$ penalty for any registration filed that is found to contain invalid information. 2) 'formal complaints' to registrar about invalid information must include a 'filing fee' for the complaint. If the complaint is in-accurate, the filer loses their filing fee. HOWEVER, if the complaint _is_ valid, the _original_ filer gets back _more_ than their fee (paid out of the 'fine', see item 1, above, assessed against the registrar) while any additional complainants get all their original money returned. Possible variation: the size of the fine assessed against the registrar for a 'confirmed' complaint depends on the number of complaints recieved within some 'reasonable' time of the first complaint -- and all complaints within that 'window' get the 'bounty' for a valid compliant. 3) Registrars are charged a _sliding-scale_ of fees, with higher fees based on the numbers and/or percentages of 'bogus' registrations submitted recently. (This is similar to the way 'unemployment taxes' are assessed in the U.S. If there are more claims against your company, you pay a higher rate than similar firms with lower claims.) 4) Registrars with higher rates of 'invalid' submissions are _rate-limited_ as to how fast they can submit registrations. Underlying assumptions: A) The 'filing fee' approximates the registry operator cost of performing a basic investigation. B) The 'fine' assessed against a registrar is signficantly higher than the actual 'cost' of the investigation. C) A registrar that has higher per-registration costs is at a competitive disadvantage to those who canprovide equivalent service at a lower price. D) A registrar who has to say "We'll take your application now, but we can't tell you for xx hours (or days) if your application for that name was successful" is at a competitive disadvantage to one who can tell you _now_ 'your application was successful'. *THIS* gives the registry operator an incentive to 'clean house' -- finding and eliminating 'problem listings' is a REVENUE SOURCE. Similarly, registrars have an incentive to ensure that their _own_ house is clean. Lack of diligence costs them extra money, -and- places them at a disadvantage relative to their competition. 'White-hat' registrars can do something similar with regard to registrants. Registrants fall into three broad categories; (a) those who have never filed before, (b) those who _do_ have a history of problem-free filings, and (c) those who have a history of filings where there have been some problems. Those with a 'no problems' history are processed in an expedited manner, suject to checks for 'abnormal' behavior -- e.g. a radical increase in the number/rate of submissions. Those with no histories are subjected to additional cross-checking/verification, and, possibly, higher 'new user' charges. Those with 'problematic' histories get deferred, surcharged, and/or rate- limited processing. One can 'tune' the rate schedules for 'new users', and 'problematic' filers, to reflect the "risk level" that the registrar is willing to incur, -with- the recogition that registrar-level penalties imposed by a registry operator will affect _all_ registrations through that registrar, not just 'problematic' ones. 1