Re: [DNS] Price of fish

Re: [DNS] Price of fish

From: Saliya Wimalaratne <saliya§hinet.net.au>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 04:57:47 +1000 (EST)
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Chris Berkeley wrote:

> That is besides the point. Sites should not be taken down without warning especially 
> until the "new system"  has been in force for a couple of years and all registrants know 
> the rules.

Hi Chris,

I'm guessing that what you're referring to is the email service offered by 
Melbourne IT ("your domain is about to expire; do you want to renew it ?")
which is obviously not offered by all registrars under the new regime. In 
fact, I don't think that even Melbourne IT offer this service anymore; though
I could be wrong. 

If body 'x' (registry, registrar, auDA) is *required* to contact 
ALL 'about-to-be-deregistered' domain holders, to verify that they *really*
want the domain to be deregistered, it instantly adds cost across-the-board.

For the case of someone who has forgotten, or did not know, or whatever,
yes, an extra charge could be added to their renewal to cover this cost. 

For the case of a domain that is intentionally being expired; 
the "other" domain name holders will be forced to pick up the tab. 
There's nobody to give the extra charge to directly.

I couldn't speculate on what proportion of renewals fall into 
which categories. I *can* state that I don't like the idea of
adding an extra charge across the board at the base level.

.au isn't offering everything that people want from it, this is plain. 
Otherwise no Australian would register outside of .au ;) But to get
back to the point - it's the domain holder's responsibility to manage
their domain (this is true of the 'old' system AND the 'new' one). Not
someone else's. 

Regards,

Saliya
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Sep 18 2014 - 16:00:11 UTC