North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical


  • From: Owen DeLong
  • Date: Tue Apr 22 15:47:59 1997

I'm sorry for taking up NANOG with this, but I couldn't resist...

> Has anyone botherered to look how many people it takes to handle
> registrations, deletions, management of systems, programming, etc? Now,
> lets think about this. What happened when InterNIC *first* started
> providing domain registrations? It was pure hell. Registrations took
> forever. They went through a few different database formats, software
> changes all the time, you couldn't get them on the phone, etc etc.
> It took THIS long to get InterNIC to where they are today, and now we want

And where are we today...

Registrations take forever.
You can't get them on the phone.
They delete domains at random claiming they didn't pay.
They delete domains based on minimal assertions by trademark owners.

> to shove in 28 new ones? And each one of these 28 new ones is going to try
> and add domains to each of the 7 new tlds? We are going to start seeing
> legal hassles like nothing else. "I sent in my registration for my.firm at
> 3:32 PST to yyy registrations. Well, I sent mine in at 7:15 EST for it to
> zzz registrations, but they processed mine first, so I get it".
Actually, I believe procedures for resolving this are part of the IAHC
documentation.  If not, they certainly should be included prior to starting
up such a process.

> Personally, I think that the new TLD's are good, though I would personally
> cut out ones such as .nom because that is just going to cause legal
> problems about who owns smith.nom, etc, but I don't think new registrars
> should be added. InterNIC should be it, one company providing this sort of
> thing is a hell of a lot more powerful than 20 little ones.
The problem with this is many-fold.  Not the least of which is that currently,
NSI has no accountability to the user-community it serves.  Free-market
choice is shown to be a powerful way to create client-centric services.
If you have another proposal to make NSI accountable for it's actions to
the people it should be accountable to, let's hear it.  Otherwise, I'll
take the IAHC proposal over the current situation any day.

> > If you agree with the IAHC solution then show your support 
> > and advocate that your company sign the MoU.
> You know, someone should really make an alternate proposal and see how
> many people sign for that or at least some sort of survey.
There are currently two choices on the table.  I don't know what has stopped
you from presenting any others you feel are appropriate.
	A	The way things are today... NSI controlled
	B	The IAHC proposal.

Of those, I'll take B.  I welcome any better proposals, though.

> Giving the people only one choice doesn't really prove anything.

Obviously, you pick A from the two choices above, but that's still
one of two choices.  I don't see where you get one choice.

I'd certainly welcome additional choices on the above menu.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -