RE: Re[2]: [ga] consensus

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:william@wxsoft.info]
|> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 12:37 AM
|> 
|> Friday, Friday, December 14, 2001, 12:17:43 AM, L Gallegos wrote:

|> > The point I was trying to make is that one cannot state 
|> categorically that
|> > there are and will not not be errors in tranfsers that 
|> cause a domain to be
|> > lost to the registrant.  Therefore, there is a necessity 
|> to protect the
|> > registrant if it should occur.
|> 
|> It does occur. In the event of the hijacking related incidents I've
|> already related, the domains were returned to their original owners,
|> after the two registrars investigated what happened an made sure that
|> it was in fact a real case of a hijacking.  The registrars actually
|> seem to work well together on fixing these kinds of issues.

Yes, and how much downtime has the registrant suffered in the meanwhile?

|> Nothing I can see indicates that it is even POSSIBLE to lose 
|> a domain in a
|> registrar transfer (and the person you had contact me off 
|> list was not
|> an example of a domain being lost during transfer, but was a 
|> result of
|> a registrar not processing domain transfer requests in a timely
|> fashion, causing the transfer to be denied by the losing registrar
|> when it was done past the expiration date, and the gaining registrar
|> refusing to refund the money (unlawfully in my opinion) and requiring
|> her to pay again to transfer the same domain).

All the reasons why and all the specifics of how, are irrelevent. The real
fact is that changing something allows Murphy in the side door and that
guy's been having entirely too much fun, at MHSC expense, this year. You've
asked me a number of times why I still have my domains with NSI, that's the
reason why. They ain't broke where they are so, I ain't fixing them by
moving them elsewhere, at the moment. After I find a reliable ISP, maybe.
But, not before.

What I can't get is why you don't understand that changing something that's
working, risks breaking it. Also, there have been registrar screw-ups,
especially in the early daze. A large part of the problem was the
fat-registrar model. It adds all sorts of complications, wrt data sync. QA
on such complicated systems are more work and take a longer shakedown. When
they screwup, they cause more damage. The downside risk is much higher than
on the simpler thin registrar model (which also has its problems, granted).

Before anyone asks, I won't join the TF because it's too sinilar to work
that MHSC normally charges for. MHSC can't afford to work for free this
year, aside from our policy against contributing revenue to ICANN, in its
current form.


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html