Why is this necessary? Other than the cool factor.
I think the question is "why should the Internet be constrained to engineering decisions made in 1992?"
Rgds,
-drc
or victims of policy of that same 'vintage'... doing things faster isn't
bad, doing it with less checks and balances and more people willing to
abuse the lack of checks/balances seems like a bad idea. If you can get a
domain added to the system fresh in 5min or less, why does it take +90
days to get it removed when all data about the domain is patently false
and the CC used to purchase the domain was reported stolen 2+years ago?
I don't mean to pick on anyone in particular, but wow, to me this seems
like just a policy update requirement.
>> I think this might be a bit in conflict with efforts
registries have
>> to reduce the turnaround in zone modification to the order
of tens of
>> minutes.
>
> Why is this necessary? Other than the cool factor.I think the question is "why should the Internet be constrained to
engineering decisions made in 1992?"
Well, I think the question is, why to new domain additions have to be
lumped in with all other zone changes and updated within minutes? Why
can't new domain additions be treated specially and be held back for a
day or two in order to prevent tasters from abusing the network. Note
that this would not prevent tasting from happening, it would only hurt
those tasters who are doing this to hide the source of network abuse.
--Michael Dillon
Because legit mom & pop shops want to sign-up and build a website in the
same way they throw a brochure together down at Kinkos. Welcome to the
"here and now" generation. 
I'm not saying that I agree with immediate domain registration, but I
understand why it is what it is today.
Want to fix it: have ICANN regulate and fine registrars who don't screen
their clientele. There are enough spam/virus/bot reports out there to
see who is responsible for what.
-Jim P.
One of the reasons that registrars are slow to take down sites that are paid
with a credit card is because there is little financial incentive to do
so....they've lost money it already, why have a department whose priority is
speed if you can hire a person to do it at their own pace and minimize the
loss?
For almost all things prudent and effective there needs to be a financial
incentive. For those registrars who take stolen credit cards, it's the
rates and fees they are charged to process credit card transactions. It
appears the rates that are charged and the penalties assessed aren't enough
to dissuade them from these fraudulent transactions, which means that the
monetary externalities of DNS registration abuse (spam, phishing sites, etc)
are not fully assessed by financial institutions. We have a similar
parallel in the cost of gasoline and the impact on the environment.
Frank
Also there is the "customer numbers" affect, most often seen with public
companies or those seeking VC funding. Those registrars compete
heavily, none of them want to have negative "numbers", not even one
negative number.
-Jim P.
>> I think this might be a bit in conflict with efforts registries have
>> to reduce the turnaround in zone modification to the order of tens of
>> minutes.
>
> Why is this necessary? Other than the cool factor.I think the question is "why should the Internet be constrained to
engineering decisions made in 1992?"
Amen to that. That said, you know better than me that even if not
constrained, it still needs legacy support as well as small steps.
Unless, of course, the changes are not in engineering decisions.