Re: Portability - Who's the looser? Re: DNS: [Oz-ISP] Social Engineering and 2LDs]

Re: Portability - Who's the looser? Re: DNS: [Oz-ISP] Social Engineering and 2LDs]

From: Alastair Waddell <awaddell§>
Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 00:57:28 +1000
On Fri, May 22, 1998 at 06:43:32PM +1000, Adam Todd wrote:

< I wrote>
> >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

<adam wrote>
> Yep, as above.  I support Portable Domain Names from the IP address
> perspective.  Gosh it only makes sense.

> >If we don't act to educate and enforce the proactive advertising
> >of portability or non-portability in the sale of domain names,

> I feel if someone is selling a domain name in an SLD that is "generic" and
> doesn't relate to the ISP's own name or private identiy, then it shodu lbe
> portable if they sellers goal is market penetration.
> Failure to meet this is restrictive trade and is written in the Trade
> Practices Act.

  I think this needs to be clarified as a matter of some
  importance as the goal in mind will be achieved if the issue
  can be articulated and made relevant to Law. 

We are currently trying to articulate the issue. It has been
hard. I hope an ACCC member is reading, though they probably have
toasted their minds by now. 

> >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). 

> And worse.  I totally Agree.

But Adam, this is all I've been saying. Have a cold shower and 
read on...

Why write in your original reply 

"In short, I guess I agree.  But..."

...and have us go through all that agony because of your 'devil's
advocate' line, only to come back to where we should have been
all along. And we know now that there's people out there for whom
a pedantic argument is like a red rag to a bull - they'll argue a
sig for Christ's sake, not to mention the misinterpretations...

Now that you have 'apparently' arrived...

> It will over time sort itself out, like any inductry issue.  It's a shame
> many have to be burnt first to educate the rest.

I disagree. I don't want to sit back. But maybe I've misread you
you because...

> Forget Local.  Global ... fix it globally.

And we move on...

> Don't forget however that AOL sells names under AOL.COM and they are as I
> understand non portable also.

Yes, but we have no problem if they are upfront and besides, we
don't _expect_ <advisory mode on> portability within the isp's
own authoritive zone... (this could lead into some further ideas

'general perception' might assume that delegation of subdomains
of an 'isp's own' domain is unlikely. But, to the non technical,
it might be hard to see why not, given that other subdomains are
portable. And the very assumption of 'obviously not' by the
technically informed is a mistake.

Point is, and maybe I could have made a better case of it, the
'badge' that advertises portability or non-portability, if
applied to _all_ subdomains, will serve the purposes of the
argument. How this would be implemented is another matter. I'm
not proposing a technical implementation, but perhaps that could
be food for thought.

Please don't forget we're still talking about a code of ethics,
or watchdogging as a solution. I'll leave any takers to suggest
or dismiss any technical possibilities... 

> >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. 
> YES.  I'm all for it.

My Man! (for now...)


> >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...
> I don't feel that was necessary.  I feel all factions should support this
> issue for the protection of the consumer and any that don't should be made
> publicly aware.
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Adam Todd               mailto:at&#167;   mailto:at§aus

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 Sat May 23 1998 - 02:09:02 UTC

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