Re: [DNS] Searcher twists name rules

Re: [DNS] Searcher twists name rules

From: ian&#167;bluedoor <auda206§>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:22:01 +1100
On Friday, March 25, 2005, at 01:17 AM, Larry Bloch wrote:

> What I think Vic is articulating (and if so I agree) is that we have to
> ensure policy serves the customer, not what armchair enthusiasts think
> customers want. From the front line, what we see is that:

What are armchair enthusiasts?

>  - registrants don't understand the restrictions placed on them by the 
> policy

I think the australian public is quite aware of the restrictions placed 
on them. In fact many are unaware of how loose the policy is. I 
personally can't see the difficulty of the "close and substantial" 
clause. Just because a user wants a name it does not mean they should 
automatically be entitled to it.

for example I want The policy states I need a 
reason as far as I am aware this is how it goes
1. I am paris hilton - accepted
2. I sell paris hilton videos - accepted
3. I want to run a site about paris hilton - denied/accepted (this one 
I am not sure about perhaps someone can explain)
4. I want to sit on the domain and sell it later - denied

What is so difficult about that. If you "want" a name you must have a 
reason so state it. Simple!

Without the clause you are inviting speculators/squatters to step in. 
Unfortunately as everyone states the horse has bolted, however this is 
partially due to registrars "bending" the registration rules in an 
attempt to grab their market share as well as auda's unwillingness to 
enforce it's own policies. Little self-governing going on there.

>  - they want names to be registered in real time

No I believe the registrars prefer real time registrations as this 
requires as little man power as possible. The more automated the 
cheaper it gets. Automation can't happen with multiple variables like 
"reasons" involved. The policy was sound, after all why have a panel to 
evaluate it in the first place, however as stated the registrars pushed 
for real time registrations which was the beginning of the "loop holes".

>  - they see the policy as useless red tape for no practical benefit

Aren't all policies :)

>  - they want to be able to sell their names

Apparently  you can already? It seems that "where there's a will 
there's a way". Also registrars don't seem to make the process too 

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:08 UTC