Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 23 August 1999, John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com> wrote:
>
>Only problem is that you happily ignore the reason why a company might do
>this. There are two possible reasons I can think of:
>a) They feel that they need a name change or have been taken over, or can't
>   use their old name because of whatever (Wasn't it juno.com or something?),
>   and they are VOLUNTARILY (to an extent) changing over. In this case, you
>   are 100% correct in that keeping a redirect from the old domain to the
>   new one should do the trick (though there are costs incurred in any case).
>
>b) They are forced because the maintainer of the old TLD is demanding a
>   ludicrous amount, or because this maintainer has gone AWOL and the TLD no
>   longer resolves, or because the maintainer doesn't respond to updates for
>   that domain name and your domain name servers no longer respond (because
>   the ISP that held them for you has decided to go AWOL or whatever), or
>   because the maintainer has suddenly decided to put your domain on hold
   because he thinks that you haven't paid, or somebody has forged your
>   entry and done an update on that record and blocked it, or somebody has
>   decided to pay a bunch of money to the maintainer and he thinks it's a
>   good idea to terminate your contract and give it to the other or....
>   (insert many other reasons along the same lines)
>
>You can resume "a" as "you want to change your domain because you want to".
>You can resume "b" as "you are forced to change your domain because you have
>BIG trouble with the maintainer of the TLD you are located under".
>
>It is not "a" that worries anyone, but rather "b". You cannot forsee or plan
>for "b". You are SOL if "b" happens. It is precisely that scenario we are
>trying to protect from.

True, but many of the circumstances in "b" have remedies other than changing
domain names which should be enacted before that drastic measure is
taken.

Worst case scenario, you contact the registrar and change the host of 
the domain.  This is only problematic if you don't "own" the domain.
This is why it's important to choose your host, if you must rely on 
a 3rd party to host your domain.  Still, this is something that is
between the registrar/registry and the owner of the domain.  The only
way I see "b" presenting a legitimate problem is if the domain is
in dispute.

If that's the case, then perhaps some language should be introduced
into the mandatory DRP to account for this problem.  I don't see
why something that protects the current (disputed) holder of the
domain couldn't be introduced, which would provide something other
than an abrupt elimination of DN use.   This is what you're concerned
about, isn't it?

>One of the reasons why NSI continues to be where it is right now is because
>it has the veiled threat of "ok, if you don't like me, then cut me off".
>It's a sort of game of "chicken". And nobody can cut NSI off just like that
>(snap fingers) at this moment (unfortunately).


I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were talking about terminating NSI at
a moment's notice and moving everyone into new domains.  

-- 
Mark C. Langston	LATEST: ICANN refuses	Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org  to consider application for       http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin    Constituency status from organized http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA      individual domain name owners      http://www.dnso.org