Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Post expiry domain email functionality.

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 26 May 2010, at 09:23, Sivasubramanian M wrote:

> Hello Helen
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Helen <helen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> A suprising number of registrants notice their domain has expired only 
> because the email stops functioning.
> 
> Again it is the idea of ruining a communication line, discarding all email 
> communication to the domain just to give the registrant a wake up call ! It 
> is harsh if this is the reason why email functionality should be interrupted. 
>  
> So they might try asking questions of their registrar.
> Or they might actually look at their website.
> If it doesn't resolve or preferably:
> If it says clearly "this domain has expired.. click here to renew"  isn't 
> that much better?
> 
> A domain continued to resolve with a visible marque or pop up that gives a 
> renewal message is definitely a better and acceptable idea. If the domain 
> name continues to resolve then email could also be undisturbed, perhaps with 
> a pop up warning in the log in page, or elsewhere.

Siva

What login page?

By the sounds of things you seem to be suggesting that people only access email 
using a web based system? Or maybe I'm picking you up wrong.


>  
> Do we really want third parties involved?
> And Google IS a registrar so wouldn't this be a conflict?
> 
> In the event where it is decided not to allow the domain name to resolve, it 
> becomes imperative that the messages inwards are not discarded.

Why?

If the domain is so important surely renewing it is "imperative"?

> If Registrars don't want to extend that courtesy to the Registrants at least 
> they could refrain from blocking an icann service or a third party service.

It's not a "courtesy". It's a service that costs money to provide and that 
registrants need to pay for.

Opening the door for a lady is a "courtesy". Providing email services to 
thousands of domains without payment is just madness.

You're making out as if it's some kind of "social service" that should be 
provided for free and that registrants have some "magical" entitlement to even 
when they're not paying for it

And "blocking" is not the same as "not providing"



> 
> I dropped the Google name illustratively. The service provider could be 
> anyone.

No it couldn't be, because of the sheer volume of mail that you are dealing 
with.

To illustrate my point I chose one of our mail servers at random.

In 2009 the mail server, which isn't that busy, received 84 million emails for 
a total of over 3 terrabytes of data. 

And that's only on about 50 domains or so.

Do you have any idea of the amount of hardware, bandwidth and other resources 
that you would need to handle mail for thousands of domains?

The funny thing is that most of the email that is hitting servers isn't even 
legitimate, yet it still uses resources

Regards

Michele
 
>  
>  Helen
> 
> On 25/05/2010 10:57 AM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
>> On 25 May 2010, at 14:53, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>> Dear Michelle
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight 
>>> <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 25 May 2010, at 11:31, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
>>> 
>>>     
>>> 
>>>> Hello
>>>> 
>>>> I asked some Google Executives if there could be a technical solution from 
>>>> an external service provider such as Gmail to the post expiry domain email 
>>>> situation. The question was sent by email with a copy to Olivier Crepin 
>>>> Leblond of ISOC England / Euralo.
>>>> 
>>>> While he doesn't find the commercial prospects for the external service 
>>>> provider convincing, his response points to the fact that technically 
>>>> there is a definite way out of the problem.
>>>>       
>>>> 
>>> So who is going to pay for it?
>>> 
>>> Definitely not the Registrars. It it takes it will take shape as a service 
>>> for which the Registrants will pay
>>>     
>>> 
>> Siva
>> 
>> Pay who and how?
>> 
>> Bearing in mind that you're talking about registrants who haven't renewed 
>> their domain names ...
>> 
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>> or it will be a service offered on a neo-Interent-business model by a 
>>> company such as Google or MSN or it will be an ICANN supported service by a 
>>> third party.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>     
>>> 
>>>> It is not necessary to abruptly discontinue email service in a post expiry 
>>>> situation.
>>>>       
>>>> 
>>> Until you can answer the key question about who is going to pay for it then 
>>> it is going to be necessary
>>> 
>>> Just because it's technically "possible" doesn't render it viable and the 
>>> email exchange clearly supports the view that we have all been promoting 
>>> for months. It makes MORE sense for the registrant to simply renew the 
>>> domain name in a timely fashion.
>>> 
>>> I agree that it makes more sense for Registrants to renew their domain 
>>> names in time. But I am concerned about those Registrants (even if they are 
>>> a smaller proportion) whose domain names expire unnoticed. 
>>>     
>>> 
>> And so you expect this "magical" email service to "know" where the mail is 
>> meant to go?
>> 
>> You also expect people to be able to access it as well I assume?
>> 
>> How?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>> Also your suggestion in this email exchange suggests that ICANN would 
>>> somehow want to get involved with an "icann owned or icann-assigned server" 
>>> (sic) is disturbing.
>>> Do you even understand what ICANN's role is in all this?
>>> 
>>> What is wrong if I want ICANN to get involved in an ICANN owned or 
>>> icann-assigned server? It is not disproportionately expensive and it is a 
>>> direct service to domain Registrants about whom ICANN is supposed to care !
>>>     
>>> 
>> How are you qualified to decide what is expensive and what isn't?
>> 
>> Just to satisfy my own curiousity ...
>> 
>> How many mail users do you currently manage?
>> 
>> How many mail servers do you currently manage?
>> 
>> How many mail servers have you configured?
>> 
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>     
>>> 
>>>> The email exchange is attached as a PDF for the committee to act upon 
>>>> futher.
>>>>       
>>>> 
>>> What committee?.
>>> 
>>> Sorry, I meant WG. This PEDNR WG 
>>>     
>>> 
>> OK
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>> Sivasubramanian M
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Mr Michele Neylon
>>> Blacknight Solutions
>>> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
>>> ICANN Accredited Registrar
>>> 
>>> http://www.blacknight.com/
>>> http://blog.blacknight.com/
>>> http://mneylon.tel
>>> 
>>> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>>> US: 213-233-1612
>>> UK: 0844 484 9361
>>> Locall: 1850 929 929
>>> Twitter: 
>>> http://twitter.com/mneylon
>>> 
>>> -------------------------------
>>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
>>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>     
>>> 
>> 
>> Mr Michele Neylon
>> Blacknight Solutions
>> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
>> ICANN Accredited Registrar
>> 
>> http://www.blacknight.com/
>> http://blog.blacknight.com/
>> http://mneylon.tel
>> 
>> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>> US: 213-233-1612 
>> UK: 0844 484 9361
>> Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
>> -------------------------------
>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,
>> 
>> Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>> 
>> 
>> .
>> 
>>   
>> 
> 

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845