Domain Rant.

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

Karl Denninger writes:

No it doesn't.

If you register with someone, pay them, and they claim never to have
received payment you're just as screwed.

No, you aren't. Today, if someone does that, you are stuck. In the new
model, you will be able to switch to another registrar. Competition,
you know.

What is it that you dislike about eDNS Paul?

I think its what most people don't like about eDNS -- they think that
someone who's "DNS" is visible to way under a percent of the net and
who claims authority based on self-appointment isn't to be taken
seriously.

I mean, I'm sure that some people take the eDNS seriously, but then
again, some people take sales of the Brooklyn Bridge seriously...

Perry
Speaking for myself, and not for the IAHC in an official capacity

2

Karl Denninger writes:
> No it doesn't.
>
> If you register with someone, pay them, and they claim never to have
> received payment you're just as screwed.

No, you aren't. Today, if someone does that, you are stuck.

Boiled down: You pay again.

In the new
model, you will be able to switch to another registrar. Competition,
you know.

Boiled down: You pay again.

What was that difference again?

I know you're good at trying to avoid facts, but this is rediculous!

3

Karl Denninger writes:

>
> Karl Denninger writes:
> > No it doesn't.
> >
> > If you register with someone, pay them, and they claim never to have
> > received payment you're just as screwed.
>
> No, you aren't. Today, if someone does that, you are stuck.

Boiled down: You pay again.

> In the new
> model, you will be able to switch to another registrar. Competition,
> you know.

Boiled down: You pay again.

What was that difference again?

I know you're good at trying to avoid facts, but this is rediculous!

Cute, but we both know that you are avoiding the point.

Here's the point, in three sentences:

a. There is very little than can be done about companies providing
substandard service, or even screwing you over, when they have a
monopolistic stranglehold on you.

b. In your "eDNS" model, registrars have this stranglehold on you, because
you you cannot switch to the services of a newer (better) registrar
without having to also change domain names.

c. With the IAHC plan, if a registrar is providing unsatisfactory service,
you can switch registrars, while keeping the same domain name.

-SteveK

4

> Boiled down: You pay again.
>
> What was that difference again?
>
> I know you're good at trying to avoid facts, but this is rediculous!

Cute, but we both know that you are avoiding the point.

On the contrary.

Here's the point, in three sentences:

a. There is very little than can be done about companies providing
substandard service, or even screwing you over, when they have a
monopolistic stranglehold on you.

Which you choose freely when you sign for that domain name. Remember, there
is no restriction on business models. In fact, the IAHC model is welcome
under eDNS and they have been officially notified and asked to sign the
charter.

b. In your "eDNS" model, registrars have this stranglehold on you, because
you you cannot switch to the services of a newer (better) registrar
without having to also change domain names.

What if the cost is 5% of what the IAHC registrar's "best bid" is? 10%?
50%? Who are you to make that choice for others?

c. With the IAHC plan, if a registrar is providing unsatisfactory service,
you can switch registrars, while keeping the same domain name.

Again, if that model is superior, and really worth the expense, whatever it
is, then it wins on its own.

It is UNNECESSARY to mandate the model - unless, of course, you don't really
believe it will win in the free market, in which case you're not only a
dictator, you're a hypocrite as well.

What's necessary is preventing the elimination of free market selection.