Re: DNS: [Oz-ISP] Social Engineering and 2LDs]

Re: DNS: [Oz-ISP] Social Engineering and 2LDs]

From: Alastair Waddell <awaddell§>
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 12:07:33 +1000
Tony, thanks for your attention to the issue raised.

Yes, me too. I use a PO Box for the exact same reasons and we can
surely relate this convenience to the one, I believe, we
generally expect to have in the portability of a domain name.

Interestingly the point Adam made, by way of an example of how we
_don't_ have portability in certain current services - ie phone
numbers, has just taken on new relevance:

The ACCC are (apparently) forcing Telstra to provide portability
of phone numbers following pressure from Optus. That's all I know
and this is apparently for regular joe numbers. Thus the number
(domain) can move across telco's (isps). 

But, excellent as that may be, it's not the point, which remains
that you and I and most, dare I say any person half experienced
in dns - knows that domain names are _inherently portable_. Optus
had to prove that Telstra could do it technically.

Remember we're trying to do social engineering for the greater

If we don't act to educate and enforce the proactive advertising
of portability or non-portability in the sale of domain names,
then there will be ongoing confusion which can only be a negative
for all of us. It's a ripoff to the consumer (to not be advised)
and it's unfair on isp's who're providing portability (and at a
fair price). 

Businesses stake their entire net future on their domain name. We
here things like 'if you don't have the net on the agenda then
you don't have a business plan' and yet a company could find
themselves locked into the negative option of being tied to one
isp for life. Such an irony that with 600 isps to choose from
you'd have to sigh and concede that you'd made a bad choice in
your 'internet partner'. It mustn't happen, not for the consumer
nor for the reputation of the industry. As the TLDs and 2LDs
broaden this issue will get out of control. Let's fix it, at the
local level, now. 

To move on with this thread, I need to see a consensus on the
portability issue and then we can try and agree on whether we
should press for action on proactive informing of the market
about portability. 

Apologies Tony, if I'm preaching to the converted and using this
reply as a soapbox but when you're pushing shit uphill it kind of
gets this way...


On Thu, May 21, 1998 at 09:48:30PM +1000, Tony Barry wrote:
> At 11:51 AM 1998/05/21, Adam Todd wrote:
> >Why does a domain name have to be any more portable than a phone number and
> >street address?
> That's why I have had a PO box for twenty years so I could vectorise it to
> my current physical address and why I now have a mobile phone number and
> use the fixed one for my computer. In the same way I hope that my network
> name will have immutability across changes in ISP and those who might run
> the domains.
> I expect to move about from place to place, live where I like, and keep my
> postal address, phone number and internet host name. On the latter for
> double insurance I use a PURL.
> Tony
> ____________________________________________________________
> mailto:tonyb&#167; | mailto:tony§
> Phone +61 4-1242-0397 or in Australia 041 242-0397
> Ningaui Pty Ltd, GPO Box 1680, Canberra, ACT 2601
> Convenor of the link network policy list link&#167;

Alastair Waddell	         o Tel +61 3 96 400-400  	 
Technical Administrator          o Fax +61 3 9222-1363 
CyberLabs	                 o		
Queen Street, Melbourne

+ Virtual Services + DNS Maintenance + ISP Co-location + Internetworking
Received on Fri May 22 1998 - 15:49:14 UTC

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