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

[Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Michelle,

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <
michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

If it is a webbased system the warning could be from the log in page, but if
the Registrant accesses email from an email client, a message could even be
set to pop up through the client. I think this should be possible, just like
how a server send out a message to the client when the login password is
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"?
>

I don't deny that. Any registrant who attaches any importance to his domain
name must be of the same opinion - that renewing the domain is imperative.
But among 150 + million domain registrants, it is natural to expect a ten
million of them to be a little disorganized, forgetful or due to some reason
there is a temporary issue in renewing the domain in time. The panalities
such as an interrupted email service is certainly harsh on them, especially
if an alternate solution existed and if the community hasn't opted to
implement it.

>
> > 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.
>

In business, anything offered 'free' is in some way factored in, either
directly or indirecly. If a free email service ( some kind of limited email
service ) is provided to thousands of domains in their expiry phase, of
which a sizable number wouldn't be renewed at all, and if it costs a certain
sum, over a period of time, this cost would be recovered by an INCREASE in
the price of the domain or the domain services.

>
> 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
>

What if there is a decision to charge a marginally higher fee for a slightly
delayed renewal,  (not just a higher fee for post expiry restoration) in
exchange for continued email functionality?


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

By blocking, I referred to your resistance to exploring a solution to this
situation.

>
>
>
> >
> > 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?
>

Yes I do have an idea.

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

There can be a stricter spam filter to discard spam at the door during the
extended email service period.

>
> 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
>
>
>