From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin§>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 12:27:17 +1100
Hello Kim,

> Quoting magic2147&#167; on Tuesday December 02, 2003:
> | 
> | How did Melbourne IT let this one go through and what the grounds? 
> | What have any
> | registrars got to say? What has auDA got to say about such 
> going ons?
> The problem, as I see it, is that registrars are merely 
> required to have registrants to "warrant" they are meeting 
> the rules, without actually testing compliance themselves too closely.

Yes that is correct.  I don't see that as a problem however.  Most
registration processes are based on some assumptions that the
information given is correct (including tax returns).  Registrars do
provide some objective checks - such as whether the ACN or ABN number is
valid.  In this case the registrant asserted that the domain name was
related to their business.   At the time of the registration, it was
reasonable to accept this assertion.  E.g the words "moon", "jet" and
"star" to have some common themes.

If you are proposing that registrars visit and interview each registrant
- that is very onerous and does not apply to most registration processes
intended for high volume applications.   auDA does do this in the
context of licencing registrars, but there are only around 20
registrars.  auDA does however charge applicants $2200 to apply to be a
registrar to cover the costs of this process.  A domain name
registration process however is designed to ensure that a registrant can
licence a domain name for far less cost.

> Naturally, such a scheme doesn't work without abusers being 
> followed up and being stripped of their domains. Personally I 
> would like to see egregious abuses of the current policy 
> punished harshly.

I think in this instance such words as "abuse" and "stripping" of the
domain seem a bit extreme.

It looks to me like a company has requested a web design company to
register a domain name and create a website.  This is a routine
transaction.  It may be that the Registrant should have been the name of
the company commissioning the web design work, and the technical contact
details should have been that of the web design company.  

Unfortunately there is a lack of understanding in the wider community
(as compared to members of the DNS list) about the terms used in the
industry - such as registrant as the legal holder of the domain name
licence, and admin, tech and billing as contacts that may refer to an
agent, web design company, web hosting company etc.   There have been
many instances where service providers in the industry have inserted
their own details in place of the registrant.  The abusers of the system
are those that systematically break the rules despite knowing what those
policy rules are.   The biggest abusers have tended to be companies
engaged in the registration or renewal of domain names in the past.  I
have seen no evidence of this in this case.

Melbourne IT is investigating this issue and contacting the parties
concerned to resolve the issue.  A starting point is to correct a
mistake made, rather than start by assuming any malicious intent.

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:07 UTC