Comments
- Comment posted Dec 11, 2003 9:36 pm PST — by DomainPawnshop
We only need someone in charge to ensure that no one is in control. So long as a registrar MUST let you transfer your domain, the root servers MUST list your DNS servers, and the folks entrusted with the root servers can't squat on all unclaimed territory, free enterprise and competition (where it's allowed) will dictate the rest.
The idea of needing an authority to protect folks on the Internet is unsettling. After all, it's the "highway" for information - not physical objects. There is no parallel need for a highway Patrol. On the concrete highway "control" is needed because moving object can kill you. This is the stated reason for every law on the books.
Whether it's speeding, running a stop sign, or not wearing a seat belt, you are controlled for physical safety. There are no laws limiting what you can think or talk about as you drive - no laws against singing, thinking about the weekend or even yelling or cussing the driver in front of you. The only non-safety related requirement on the concrete highway is a license plate and registration. Since ALL Internet traffic requires an IP number, we have already met that test on the Internet highway.
Indeed, it could be said there is already TOO MUCH control of the Internet. Why shouldn't there be competing root server services? If XYZ company can provide the same services for $3 that Verisign charges $5 for, how many registrars do you think would use it? Exactly how hard is it to change a cache file in your DNS directory?
What if I didn't want to resolve anything but .fool domains? Why do I need ICANN or Verisign? And what if all of us .fool owners don't want you .com'ers to find our sites? Perhaps that is how we wish to deal with spam and cyber crime; a gated community if you will.
So yes, this is a very important moment. It is very important remember there is safety in numbers - not in names. And until ARIN starts redirecting all of my IP numbers that I haven’t assigned to a host machine over to their website, I’m going to let whomever thinks they control the Internet have at it. At the same time, I’m going to advance the notion that DNS is entirely to simple of a chore for the price being paid – both financially and politically – and exercise the idea of a mass revolt against monopolies and control. After all, if a root server service squats on all unclaimed space and nobody sees it, is it just the sound of one hand clapping?
- Comment posted Oct 11, 2005 7:32 am PDT — by DomainPawnshop
A simple examination of your rebuttal will easily defeat it.
First, since the purpose of the grace period is to allow the domain name registrant to renew the registration, one has to consider the possibility that they will. Whether for their own planned use or as part of a last-minute sale, if the registration is renewed at any point during the grace period the new year does not start upon payment being submitted - it started on the anniversary date.
Therefore, any period that the registrar disrupted proper resolution of the name and redirected traffic to its own website (also known as "Illegal Intercept") is clearly at the expense of the registrant.
Next, your application of a “rent” analogy is flawed in several ways:
Renters move into property that is created and owned by someone else. Conversely, the intellectual property rights of a domain name are created by the registrant and were never owned by the registrar. Therefore the registrar’s position is not that of an owner, but rather that of an impartial fiduciary to the registrant and the public.
Acting on behalf of the registrant, the registrar provides a grace period to accommodate the unavoidable difficulties that arise in life and may prevent payment on the exact day it is due. Acting on behalf of the public, the registrar is supposed to assure that if the registrant does not meet fee payment responsibilities within a reasonable grace period the name is again made publicly available.
It is inappropriate for the registrar to use its position of trust to take over a registrant's domain to advertise its own (related and unrelated) services, or to conspire with other organizations to profit on the re-entry of abandoned assets into the publicly available pool.
Finally, eviction is a process. Factually speaking, a rental eviction can take much longer than the 45 days provided by the domain name renewal grace period. During a rental eviction the tenant remains in full control of the property and, unless provided for in the lease agreement, the owner cannot even place a realtor’s sign in the yard.
In conclusion, given their fiduciary role, the current practices or registrars are unjustified, unethical, and without legal basis.
Topic Interests
DNS,
Domain Names,
Policy & Regulation,
Law,
Whois,
Top-Level Domains,
Security,
Internet Protocol,
Privacy,
Cybersquatting,
Spam,
Domain Registries,
IPv6,
IP Addressing,
Regional Registries,
Internet Governance,
Mobile
Recent Blogs
- Oct 10, 2005
- Comments: 15
- Views: 11,655
Popular Posts
- Oct 10, 2005
- Comments: 15
- Views: 11,655
