From: <magic2147§>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:17:24 +1100
On 3 Dec 2003 at 12:27, Bruce Tonkin wrote:

> > 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.

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious this is the scenario. Obviously Quaintarse  
wanted the name of their new airline (unrelated query for shareholders: why are you 
letting management compete with themselves?) to be kept under wraps until the 
official launch. What better way to maintain the security than to get your pet web 
designer to register the name.

And MIT will be a party to this charade if they just change the registrant details now 
"because of some confusion". Ms Nixon surely knows enough not to attest to the 
validity of her claims to the domain licence. She is a member of the staff of a highly 
experienced and effective web developer. 

Whether she was confused or  deliberately trying to mislead MIT is irrelevant. the 
registration should be cancelled and the name be made available to allcomers on a 
first in best dressed basis.

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