Re: [DNS] kafkaesque

Re: [DNS] kafkaesque

From: Saliya Wimalaratne <saliya§>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 18:12:09 +1000 (EST)
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Chris Berkeley wrote:

> We are currently tidying up a web site for a client in WA.
> The site is down because the domain is suspended as it has not been renewed.

Hi Chris,


The responsibility for renewal of any licence is with the licencee. 

If you do not renew your driver's licence, and you drive and are pinged for
being an unlicenced driver, that's your responsibility. Not the RTA's; and
not the police force's. Even if you're not aware of it - it's still your

Just because your client didn't know about what their responsibilities were,
does not make them any less responsible. 

To answer your points (IMO:)

The 'owner' of the domain is responsible (that's your client). 

Yes, the original purveyors of the domain should have alerted their client as 
to the client's responsibilities and to the requirement of ongoing maintenance.

When your client moved their hosting elsewhere they should have investigated
all aspects of the service (perhaps done a point-by-point comparison of the
two services and investigated any discrepancies). 

No, AusRegistry should not be required to 'take steps' before undelegating a 
non-renewed domain. 

No, auDA isn't responsible for failing to force AusRegistry/Connect West to
verify whether or not clients *really want* to undelegate a domain.

IMO, making the registry/registrar perform this function could only increase
the cost of a domain to the end-user. For those of us end-users that are 
aware of our responsibilities (and are already paying *too much* for a domain
name) there's no need for suggestions to increase that already inflated 
price thanks very much :)


Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:06 UTC