RE: [DNS] kafkaesque

RE: [DNS] kafkaesque

From: Chris Berkeley <magic2147§>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 00:05:36 +1000
On 22 Sep 2002 at 21:42, Saliya Wimalaratne wrote:

> Should they be contacted ? Probably. By AusRegistry/auDA ? no. IMO requiring
> this function at such a base level would add significant cost to the 
> already-overpriced DNS registration system in .au.
> I would certainly support a suggestion to AusRegistry/auDA that *any* 
> deregistered .au domain be subject to a 'cooling-off' period where it was 
> impossible to be registered by anyone else, though. I can't see how this 
> automated cooling-off would add significant cost to the process.

According to AusRegistry is copping $39 net a pop for most of 
the domains that are registered in this godforsaken system. I would say that a courtesy 
call or fax to the registrants of "live" sites before taking them down would cost them all 
of about $5. So that this doesn't become a burden for anyone other than recalcitrant 
registrants a "late" renewal might incur a loading of say $7.50. Then the revenues of 
Ausregistry would not be harmed. (In any event Saliya if you have a beef with the costs 
of .au registrations the complaint should be with the amount of money going to 
Ausregistry which seems to me to be in a very good position with this - especially for a 
company with a very small shareholder equity.)

My point is that sites should not be taken down without a modicum of care being taken 
by registrars and the registry to prevent unnecessary inconvenience. The suggestion 
that the domain name are analagous to drivers licences is puerile in the extreme. They 
are part of the overall service that our industry is supposed to be rendering to Australian 
businesses and the community in general. Furthermore Ausregistry/auDa contrary to 
their own belief are not the law. To put it another way Ausregistry/auDA take great pains 
to extoll the virtues of private enterprise and competion but here they are at first blush 
acting like a bunch of Indian Railway booking clerks or a Jobs Worth from Essex. 
Domain name registrants should not be subject to some half assed outfit taking 
peremptory action in relation to their web site just because they have had the temerity 
to fail to renew promptly especially when they have not had any notification regarding 
renewal from the channels that are supposed to be providing them with assistance. A 
real service industry would be bending over backwards to ensure that the service 
provided was better than good.

May I remind you that 99.85% of domain name registrants are totally confused by all 
the crap that has been going on with .au domains of late. A little compassion for the 
poor bastards would not go astray.

I understand that MIT has had some legal strife over the taking down of websites in 
similar circumstances. I am not sure of the facts in those cases and IANAL but it seems 
to me that Ausregistry/auDA might have some kind of exposure in this regard - one can 
only hope that if they take someone down who has deep pockets they will be sued.

Any suggestions as regards how Connect West came to be the registrar when the 
registrant has not authorised a transfer?

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