RE: [DNS] Now I am ANGRY

RE: [DNS] Now I am ANGRY

From: Mark Hughes <effectivebusiness§>
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:08:29 +1100
Hi David,

> Bulk anonymous ftp downloading was stopped permanently on 1 Sept 2000.
> (And intermittently earlier in 2000.)  So its closer to 1.5 years.

thanks for that information.  That confirms my point that all those paper
mail 'renewal notices' sent out in the last 12 months could easily have been
based on a copy of the AUNIC database that was downloaded before such
restrictions were put on 2000.  No 'conspiracy theory' recent access to the
database is required.

Its also public knowledge that auDA has put restrictions on some entities'
access where they appear to have been trying to pull data by sending a
gazillion queries per hour to via the web site.

> If the creation date is known then people can tell what version of
> the name policy was in effect at the time the domain was created.
> It makes no sense to compare a domain name with the name policy
> which is in effect today, the only sensible thing is to look at
> the name policy in effect at the time the domain was created.
> Given that name policy (and the person responsible for implementing
> it) has changed significantly over the years at least in,
> knowing a creation date is critical to being able to answer
> seriously questions like "why was that domain ever registered?"

And what a pleasure it is to see some real issues on this listserver :) -
this one is worthy of some thought and discussion.

It brings us back to a lengthy post I sent to this list on 26 January about
compliance with policy and 'grandfathering'.

If its the case that existing names are always renewed under a 'grandfather'
clause regardless of whether they meet current policy (which was Robert
Elz's policy, and was also the policy recommendation of auDA's name policy
review panel), then why do we need to know what was the policy at the time
the domain name was registered?  And therefore why do we need to know the
creation date?

As I said in my post of 26 Jan, its probably time we confronted this
'grandfathering' issue head on, rather than ducking and weaving.

If we're not going to grandfather existing domain names, then who's going to
be the one to tell existing domain name holders (e.g.,, and many others) their name won't be
renewed?  Anyone care to volunteer to be the one to do it??

If we do grandfather existing domain names, then its hardly worth even
keeping a record of past versions of the policy - its difficult to see how
that information could ever be used.

So far, I can't see a reason why the creation date needs to be visible.

Regards, Mark

PS - as a 'second-best' compromise, why not show the creation year, but not
the month / day.  That would give an indication of how old the domain name
was without enabling its use for 'renewal notices'.

Mark Hughes
Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd
+61 4 1374 3959
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:05 UTC