Re: DNS: Response on time-table for renewals of DNs

Re: DNS: Response on time-table for renewals of DNs

From: Antony <antony§>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 19:10:24 +1100 (GMT+1100)
> My response is essentially the one I gave to the first of Geoff Huston's
> "4 Questions" last month, viz.
> > 1. Why the relatively rapid timetable to charge existing holders of
> >    domain names [for renewal of registrations]?
> We have two strong motivations: technical and commercial.
> As the COM.AU DNA we need to validate and update the DNS as soon as
> possible, so we can carry out our job without making serious mistakes
> through relying on badly out-of-date and incomplete data in the DNS. 
> Currently AUNIC is both incomplete (in allocated DNs) and unreliable
> (for administrative and technical contacts). The fact that AUNIC only
> allows each administrative contact to belong to one organisation, when
> in reality, they can belong to several, means that we cannot properly
> test whether the specified administrative contact in applications is
> indeed the true admin contact for the organisation. We are also told by
> several ISPs that many of the administrative and technical contacts
> listed in AUNIC are out of date. As the COM.AU DNA, we need to obtain
> reliable, up-to-date information on all our customer admin contacts, 
> and we can best achieve this through a complete re-registration process. 
> The commercial discipline of having to pay to renew DNs will sort out
> the "live" from the "dead" DNs, and cause the administrative and
> technical contacts to be updated in the process. We shall work with
> PISPs and other ISPs to validate their records during December-February
> and produce a reliable DNS. 

In which case, you could simply get the registration dates from the company
or ISP (or both to confirm) and set a date (hey, how about Feb '97??) in
which if DN owners have not contacted you regarding domains you can
delete their entries. Naturally, you'd email all DN contacts regarding this,
wouldn't you. (Just like you didn't do with re-registrations.)

Of course, if they suddenly pop up saying "hey we're still here" then you
can whack them with a late fee, then charge them the normal fee when it
should be due, on the DN registration annivesary. 

> Might I add that I do not believe it is practical to have competing DN
> Administrators working safely in the domain until the current DNS
> is validated by this means.

Ok, validate it, but I do not believe M.IT should be allowed to have a
strangle hold (for 2 years) over everyone in the .COM.AU hierarchy. Besides,
the DNS could be split amongst several DNA's, thus reducing the load on
each, and getting the verification done faster.

> PG

  Antony Healey		ISOC-AU Founding Member		Ph:  +61 2 9893 1883
  General Manager					Fax: +61 2 9893 1884
  Healey Communications Australia  --  Giving you the world...
Received on Sun Dec 08 1996 - 19:49:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:02 UTC