Re: DNS: defining "official" domains

Re: DNS: defining "official" domains

From: Clive <clive§>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 12:28:34 +1000

You hit the nail on the head " long as they know what they are getting
As far as the consumers are concerned that is the nub of the problem. They
should be given ALL the facts so that THEY can make an informed decision.

Clive Flory
Internet Names Australia

At 11:52 AM 6/19/98 +1000, you wrote:
>] Rick Welykochy wrote:
>] > (*) *.au domains will go on forever ... they are THE sanctified
>] >     TLD's in Australia
>] Like many others I have a gut feel that some domains are "official"
>] while others aren't.  It might be interesting to elaborate on what
>] this means.
>] Rick points out that no fees need to be paid to renew the domain.
>] That seems to be a necessary condition, but not sufficient.
>] There needs to be a chain of delegation authority from IANA.  Again,
>] necessary, but not sufficient.
>] Continuing to mull...
>I've mulled over this for a while in the past, trying to work out what
>it is that is common between,, and com, but different
>from, au, and the root on one hand, or domains,
>, and on the other.
>What I've come to decide is that the defining characteristic is:
>	whether the domains were delegated from the parent domain with
>	the intention that they would be available for registrations by 
>	the entities unrelated to the domain authority (eg: the public).
>That may sound straight-forward and obvious at first reading, but the
>key thing is what the *parent* domain authority was intending the domain
>to be used for when it was delegated.  So rather than looking at the
>policy of the domain itself, you would look at the policy of the parent.
>It would be nice it we had an acronym for these domains which were delegated
>to take public registrations (from suitably qualified applicants, in line
>with the domain's policy) regardless of what level they are (not just TLDs).
>To put this in context, I think there are three (orthogonal?) properties 
>of domains which accept registrations from unrelated entities :-
>	1. whether the domain has a chain of authority back to IANA
>	   (which we seem to be calling "official")
>	2. whether registrations/delegations are portable.
>	3. this property, of being delegated by the parent for the
>	   purpose of taking registations from unrelated entities.
>Domains like AUS don't have property 1, and do have property 2.
>I'm not sure whether property 3 makes sense in this context, but if
>there was a COM.AUS for example then it would have property 3.
>Domains like have property 1, but not property 2 or 3.
>Domains like have property 1 and property 2, but don't have
>property 3.
>Domains like, com, have properties 1, 2, and 3.
>Property 1 is relevant in the real world because domains with property
>1 are visible throughout the Internet, while those without property 1
>are not visible everywhere.  Property 2 is obviously relevant to the
>real world, as soon as you try to change ISPs or whatever.
>The relevance of Property 3 in the real world (ie: for your average
>user who doesn't care about DNS, and just wants it to work) is left
>as an exercise for the reader.
>I don't think the property of whether fees are paid to renew the domain
>is relevant (it's not necessary, at least).  We can imagine in one
>possible world having ADNA in charge of au, and charging the holders
>of the various 2LDs in *.au with renewal fees to help pay for ADNA's
>budget.  In this theoretical world, each 2LD has a single registrar.
>I would prefer to register in a domain with properties 1, 2 and 3,
>but other people may not be so fussy about some of these properties,
>and that's fine as long as they know what they are getting into.
> David Keegel <djk&#167;>  URL:
>Cybersource P/L: Unix Systems Administration and TCP/IP network management
Received on Fri Jun 19 1998 - 13:21:00 UTC

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