Re: DNS: Multiple Registrars in,,

Re: DNS: Multiple Registrars in,,

From: Michael O'Reilly <michael§>
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 14:26:18 +0800
In message <01BD7A91.7F2F6120&#167;>, Mark Hughes
[ .. ]
> If the existing policies are worth preserving, then lets do so.  But they
> can't be preserved solely with a technical solution.  A working SRS
> used by multiple Registrars will not preserve the existing policies.

That's a very strong statement.
> For that to happen we need to do whatever hard work is required
> to develop:
> Policies under which Registrars will be approved and removed
> Policies under which entities will be approved and removed
> for each SLD
> Policies under which domain names will be approved and removed
> for those entities.
> That sort of stuff is harder to develop than the technical solution.

Nahh. It's dead easy in an incremental sense.

The dictator (the current person handling anoints and removes
registars at whim. 
The dictator publishes policies that registrars must abide by.
The dictator has final say on whether or not a domain abides by the


You'll notice that is nearly exactly what happens right now. (just
read 'staff' for registrars).

> Lets say there are twenty Registrars operating in or 
> or whatever.  My business, ShonkyTraders Pty Ltd
> wants a name in one of those SLDs.  We approach a Registrar,
> get knocked back even though there is no clear and unambiguous policy,
> we have signed no agreement that names are issued subject to specific
> rules, there are no clear reasons why we have been rejected,
> we threaten to sue the Registrar who's a small individual operator,
> and they cave in because they have a doubtful legal position 'cause of no cle
> ar
> policies and processes being in place.

How is this different from what's in place right now? There's really
no need to fix all the worlds problems in one shot. All you want to do
is make sure it's not worse that it currently is.

Something like 'if any registrar will approve it, you got it, else the
only recourse is to ask the dictator (who'll probably ask for a
non-refundable $100 fee for doing the review process)'.

Then is registrar Y is doing really dodgy things, then all 
registrars - {Y} will complain and the dictator will use the famous
'whim' clause to rectify or clarify.

Repeating myself: It doesn't need to be perfect as long as it's
clearly not worse than the current situation. There's no sense in
worrying yourself silly about all possible issues that could ever come
up. Just make sure there is some way of fixing thing that actually do
become problems, and let 'er rip.

Remembering that NO policy is going to work 100%. There will always be
corner cases. But if the corner cases amounts to 0.1%, who cares?

Received on Fri May 08 1998 - 17:23:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:03 UTC