RE: Long term registrations - Was: RE: [ga] Fwd: LACTLD comments on Zone Transfers

[Steven Heath <Steven.Heath@Optimation.co.nz>]

On Friday, 20 September 2002 12:41 p.m. Karl Auerbach wrote:

> If someone doesn't bother to update their list of DNS 
> servers, eventually
> their domain becomes unusable, so there is more than a bit of
> self-interest in keeping things up to date.  (Not updating one's DNS
> delegation information is sort of like not putting oil into 
> your airplane
> motor - yes, you can skip it, but eventually bad things happen.)

I understand the logic but you have now replaced a regular planned known
billing event with billing instead being ad hoc. Both of our approaches have
billing, one is planned and known (to both parties) and the other isn't.

Most Internet related 'things' are access to the well and not per bucket...
this makes it easier  to determine costs for the user and income for the
supplier. For good and for bad.

> As for whois data - I personally have yet to see what I 
> believe to be a
> compelling argument why the generic "I" should be required to 
> publish "my"
> personally identifiable information for the generic "your" 
> convenience.

Lets assume that no private data is in whois. The registry still has to have
up to date information on the registration for the ad hoc billing to occur.
It also must record, for both accounting and for customer service reasons
all the activities (eg to prove to a registrant that in fact a change was
made and ergo a charge was raised).

> If we assume the challange mechanism I posited in a previous 
> message, if
> contact information is bad, and someone pays the registry to perform a
> challange operation, and no reply is received in response, 
> then losing the
> registration is kind of a rather strong incentive for folks 
> to make sure
> that the registry has up-to-date contact information.
> 
> (Notice that in the challange mechanism that I propose, the name and
> contact information of the registrant is not made available to the
> challanger.)

The entire challenge approach has merit but it does seem to push toward a
thick registry model. This is not bad just needs good explicit agreement
that this is better for key stakeholders.

And of course the challenge process needs a billing process :-)

Steven Heath
.nz news & views
http://radio.weblogs.com/0110729/
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html