Re: [DNS] the road ahead

Re: [DNS] the road ahead

From: Larry Bloch <larry§netregistry.au.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 11:10:26 +1000
>> e) lack of privacy within the sld.
>> 	the dns rules have a blatent disregard for client ownership
>> 	and the privacy of customer information, this has to stop.
>> 	the public whois db is a spamer delight.
>
>If client X reserves the domain "microsoft.asn.au", Microsoft will
>attempt to defend their right to the use of the name.  It is naive
>to say "Its FCFS, let them choose another one" or "they've already
>got a COM.AU anyway".  These organisations will defend their right
>to use the name in the court.
>
>The question is "who will they sue?".
>
>If there was a move to a situation where clients state "I have a right
>to this domain so give it to me", then we would like any disputes to
>not include the registrars.  Therefore, there needs to be a way for
>potential litigants to identify the current holder of the domain.

Terms and Conditions can inmclude a clause that allows the registrar to
release domain owner information on receipt of a lawyers letter requesting
this information. This safeguards privacy from spammers and prevents the
registrar being the only visible party to sue.

>
>There is a social argument as well.  There is a public benefit in being
>able to identify the owner of a domain, in order to direct complaints,
>or to protect against illegal hosted material.  Also, in the event that
>a registrar goes belly up, the continuing permenance of the domain holders
>need to be ensured.

All these issues can be covered by Terms and Conditions that allow the
reistrar to release information on a 'needs' basis.

I can choose to have my telephone number unlisted. Why not my ownership of
a domain name?

>
>On the other hand, as an employee of an ISP myself, I also have a
>concern with the way in which the aunic based domains make contact
>directly with the client.  If one of our staff make a silly error
>during the submission, the rejection is cc'd to the client.  Bills
>for renewals go to the client.  Nasty threats about deregistration
>are sent to the client.

This is all totally unacceptable. I believe MIT has no right to contact my
clients under any circumstances. What right does MIT have to publish and/or
contact clients I have spent considerable money and effort finding?

_____________________________________________

Larry Bloch                   
Chief Executive Officer       
NetRegistry Pty Limited       
email:  larry&#167;netregistry.au.com
Office: +61-(0)2-9555 6299
Fax:    +61-(0)2-9555 5808

http://www.netregistry.au.com
Domain House, PO Box 2088, Sydney, NSW 1043
_____________________________________________
Received on Wed Jun 24 1998 - 09:05:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Oct 20 2014 - 12:00:05 UTC