RE: [DNS] Have IRA gone one lie too far?

RE: [DNS] Have IRA gone one lie too far?

From: Mark Hughes <effectivebusiness§pplications.com.au>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:08:00 +1100
Following my earlier posting, a couple of other thoughts occurred to
me......

Regarding who is likely to end up with the role of renewing domain names, my
guess is that a decade or so from now it is likely that for many businesses,
their accountants will probably be the ones renewing their domain names,
just as they manage the business names / company names.  That is, I reckon
over time the 'techo' element of domain names will subside, and they will be
treated as just another part of business administration.

Offsetting that, however, most domain names a decade from now will belong to
individuals not businesses - which will be a surprise to the politicians who
somehow think the internet is really only about business, with other use by
society just an irritation.  Whether most of the .au domain names a decade
from now are non-business depends largely on what happens with .au domain
name policies.

I predict that the introduction of competition in provision of .au domain
name services will lead to a significant reduction in prices for registering
domain names, and a result of that will be a reduction in the viability of
dodgy domain name renewal practices.  These practices to some extent trade
on the reality that many domain name holders have only an approximate idea
of what they paid for their domain name ("ummm, I think it was somewhere
between $100 & $200 bucks").  So when they get a renewal notice pitched at
$215 it doesn't look out of place.  If the cost of registering .au domain
names comes down to say, $50, then the "margin" an unscrupulous operator can
whack on top without triggering "gee, that doesn't seem right" reactions,
reduces considerably.  In fact, the lower the cost of domain names in the
general market, the less 'margin' dodgy operators have to play with - which
is likely to make the game not worth playing.  For example, while gTLDs are
going for something like $15 per year, they don't appear to have a similar
problem.

Regards, Mark

Mark Hughes
Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd
effectivebusiness&#167;pplications.com.au
www.pplications.com.au
+61 4 1374 3959





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo&#167;auda.org.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2001 10:09
> To: dns&#167;auda.org.au
> Subject: RE: [DNS] Have IRA gone one lie too far?
>
>
> Thank you Mark. auDA is at present looking at the WHOIS system in
> detail to
> determine what level of data should be available to comply with privacy
> guidelines and the requirement to provide domain name registrant
> information.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Disspain
> CEO - auDA
> ceo&#167;auda.org.au
> +61-3-9349-4711
> www.auda.org.au
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Hughes [mailto:effectivebusiness&#167;pplications.com.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 November 2001 09:56
> To: dns&#167;auda.org.au
> Subject: RE: [DNS] Have IRA gone one lie too far?
>
> > One outcome I'm anticipating:  The IRAs and INGs plan to close up
> > shop once they're subjected to a CoC
>
> Its possible the establishment (and enforcement) of Codes of Conduct will
> have no effect on dodgy operators trying to make money out of renewing
> people's domain names.  I believe a technical solution would be more
> effective than a 'management' solution.
>
> The problem with a Code of Conduct solution is that it must have
> a sanction
> for it to work - i.e. "if you don't toe the line, we'll do X to
> you".  That
> may work fine for accredited Registrars, and for accredited
> Re-Sellers, etc.
>
> But you don't have to be an accredited Registrar, or Re-Seller,
> to register
> domain names.  The domain name renewal situation is analagous to renewing
> business names, company names etc.  You can do it yourself, or you can pay
> someone to do it for you.
>
> So I could send out a gazillion letters to domain name holders offering to
> renew their domain names for them, and set my charges at whatever I like.
> The domain name holders are simply paying me a fee to look after
> a chore for
> them.  As many businesses do today with their Accountants - they pay their
> accountants to look after their business name / company name registration.
>
> I don't have to be an 'accredited Re-Seller'.  I don't have to be a
> Registrar.  And I fail to see on what grounds a Registrar could
> refuse to do
> business with me if I want to renew someone's domain name for them.
>
> Instead, I recommend a solution to the issue that is primarily technical,
> built around the following recommendations:
>
> 1.  Change the view of all whois databases (i.e. AUNIC and any operated by
> Registrars and authorised re-sellers) so that the 'Creation Date' is not
> displayed.  Make the creation date only visible in the domain name edit
> form, for which people need the domain name registry key.
> 2.  Change the view of all whois databases so the street number is not
> displayed.  Make the street number only visible in the domain name edit
> form, for which people need the domain name registry key.  This
> will end the
> paper mail snowstorm.  Note that the ASIC company / business
> names database
> displays neither street number or street name, so they've solved this
> problem.  It doesn't solve the problem for all time, as the
> contact person's
> email address is visible, but the situation in the community at
> large at the
> moment is that an email offer to renew the domain name is likely
> to be taken
> more skeptically than a paper one.
> 3.  Ensure that the domain name renewal process requires that the person
> renewing the domain must have the domain name registry key.  This
> will tend
> to make domain name owners check the status of their domain name, and many
> will check with their existing hosting service, etc, before just sending
> money off to someone.
>
> It may not be worth introducing these changes into the existing
> systems, as
> they're all about to change with the introduction of competition (which I
> must say is proceeding faster than I had expected), but I believe they
> should be included in the design of the new systems.
>
> I think this is one of the (rare) occasions when some technical
> changes may
> be more effective than a 'management' solution.
>
> Regards, Mark
>
>
> Mark Hughes
> Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd
> effectivebusiness&#167;pplications.com.au
> www.pplications.com.au
> +61 4 1374 3959
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
> express permission of the author. 322 subscribers.
> Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
> Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.
>
> --
> This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
> express permission of the author. 322 subscribers.
> Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
> Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.
>

--
This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 322 subscribers. 
Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.
Received on Wed Nov 21 2001 - 00:41:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Oct 23 2014 - 16:00:08 UTC