Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC
patrick at namesecure.com
Fri Jan 22 03:32:45 UTC 1999
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Dean Anderson wrote:
> Once again, we have a tempest in a teapot. And once again this "tempest" is
> just a means of obscuring the real problem. Speculators aren't the
> problem. They are just a scapegoat.
> I'm probably going about this the wrong way by arguing the details of
> speculation, instead of getting people to focus on the real problems of
> performance and management.
Well, I wouldn't exactly characterize speculators as "scapegoats"
however your point is a valid one.
> But Internic isn't very forthcoming in how they manage their systems. Even
> so, I think I could run an automated database service for very little cost
> per transaction. On the order of hundreths of a cent per transaction.
You and half a million other people claim to be able to do this. Running
> You also assume that domain speculators are the only ones who register more
> domains than they pay for. They aren't.
Yes, they are.
> I'll bet many here have registered domains that they later didn't want
> and didn't pay for.
So? That doesn't prove that non-speculators do this more often than
speculators. Why don't you check with NSI on this?
> Further, speculators ultimately pay for the domains they sell.
No, the purchaser pays for the domains they sell. The speculator often
> What you are really complaining about is that they register some domains
> they don't pay for. The only reason you are complaining about that is
> because someone pinned the blame for Internic problems on speculators.
I would hardly say that is the only reason.
> The claim that "speculators don't pay" doesn't stand up.
It stand up quite well. Having worked for a registrar that employed both
models (post-pay and pre-pay) I can state unequivocally that our empirical
data showed that because of speculation a post-pay model was undesireable
as the speculators on the system at the time were not paying for the vast
majority of domains they registered.
> Neither does the claim that speculators cause Internic problems. They don't.
Demostratively false, that is why we are having this discussion. The
problems at NSI weren't caused from normal load that they expect. If you
want to argue that they have a shoddy, underpowered infrastructure, I
would tend to agree with you.
> I think Internic can afford to scale with the volume regardless of
> speculation. Internic is a nearly fully automated process which charges
> Speculators that actively try to sell their domains quite likely cause more
> domains to be registered, and so they increase the Internic sales revenue.
> I haven't seen any evidence that the costs of their non-completed
> transactions are more than cost of their completed transactions.
Think about what you are saying. The cost of a completed transaction is
absored by the fees paid for that transaction. The cost of a non-completed
transaction is paid for by the fees *everyone else* pays for *their*
transactions. Because you haven't seen the evidence does not mean it does
not exist. There is quite a bit of expense associated with mailing
paper invoices for example.
> The only speculators that might be able to register thousands of domains
> with little effort are the ones who register on-hold domains. But they are
> doing a favor for Internic, because they are collecting fees.
Where do you get this wild idea? The only way this occurs is if the domain
is sold which occurs in the minority of cases, and then it is usually the
end purchaser, not the speculator that is paying for the domain. The
speculator serves no useful purpose in the transaction chain for anyone
involved save themselves.
Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs http://www.ispf.com
More information about the NANOG