Isn't it confusing enough to deal with the InterNIC, let alone
telling a customer "Oh yeah, well we registered it with registry number
27.."
I can probably speak for a _lot_ of people when I say that we will
probably continue to do business exclusively with the InterNIC, no
matter how cheap the others are: The InterNIC has proven itself to
me to be reliable, stable, and in the case where problems _do_ come
up they're very responsive. They basically started the whole ballgame,
why change?
I can probably speak for a _lot_ of people when I say that we will
probably continue to do business exclusively with the InterNIC, no
matter how cheap the others are: The InterNIC has proven itself to
me to be reliable, stable, and in the case where problems _do_ come
up they're very responsive.
Clearly, this is some use of the words "reliable", "stable", and
"responsive" to which I am heretofore unaccustomed.
They basically started the whole ballgame, why change?
I'll bet there are people at SRI International and Government Systems
Inc who woud be very interested to learn that!
---rob
Isn't it confusing enough to deal with the InterNIC, let alone
telling a customer "Oh yeah, well we registered it with registry number
27.."
You don't register "with" a registrar, you register "through" them
with CORE. No matter who you register through, it lands in the same data
base.
I can probably speak for a _lot_ of people when I say that we will
probably continue to do business exclusively with the InterNIC, no
matter how cheap the others are: The InterNIC has proven itself to
me to be reliable, stable, and in the case where problems _do_ come
up they're very responsive. They basically started the whole ballgame,
why change?
1. Business decisions which are adequate to the purpose and which
greatly simplify the running of the business are almost always to be
preferred. If dealing with NSI achieves this, so much the better for you.
It will, however, be interesting to see whether NSI's limited choice of
top-level names (for now) is preferred by your
2. You are, indeed, fortunate to have missed the many and varied
problems that NSI has experienced in learning to do their business, such as
multiple billings and inappropriate holds on names.
3. NSI didn't start anything and certainly nothing to do with
.com. This all pre-dated them by many years.
d/
It is statements like these (which have appeared with some regularity
in the past) that make me believe that IAHC/iPOC have in mind a single
monolithic database for all TLDs...
I suspect that's because people often confuse roles with
implementations.
d/
[ . . . ]
> You don't register "with" a registrar, you register "through" them
> with CORE. No matter who you register through, it lands in the same data
> base.
It is statements like these (which have appeared with some regularity
in the past) that make me believe that IAHC/iPOC have in mind a single
monolithic database for all TLDs...
It's called DNS.
Can we get over this idle guessing and wait for somebody to
actually release some /facts/, please?
---------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> =========---------
> OKINA MAKETSU IPPAI NO UISUKI, ONEGAI SHIMASU! |
----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========----
It's called DNS.
Is is not. The DNS is a depolyed protocol set which provides mappings.
Though a bit creaky and having 42 bags hung on the side of it, it is
still a pretty reasonable protocol set.
It should not be confused with the brain-dead garbage some people are
advocating throwing in it.
randy
It could be DNS -- I wrote a draft suggesting that and submitted it
to the IAHC, and later implemented shared registry software that does
exactly that -- but the model currently favored by iPOC etc seems to
be a commercial database which generates zone files to feed to DNS.
DNS is run, apparently, by possibly yet another contractor to CORE.
Could you be just a bit more specific, and perhaps expand on why you
feel this way?
