Hi Jim, It is for business users rather than end users that I see this service as having the most potential rather than end users, I don't see it as a solution I would try to sell to other Service Providers/ISPs.
Regardless of which type of customer buys the service I want it all to appear as if it is provided "in house", this is technically possible with this service and there are other people offering these features for this solution. To my mind if I offer a service which presents itself as coming from a third-party it gives my customers the impression that I am not big enough to provide the solution on my own - which may be true but I don't want to advertise that. I don't dispute that there is potential conflict between these requirements as minimum requirements as you have indicated in your email, however neither the "idiot proof" nor the "highly flexible and completely controllable" elements have been achieved and I do not agree that these entities are mutually exclusive either in aim or implementation. I am of the opinion that the vast majority of those features which are not available would not take a large amount of effort to implement, particularly the complete control element. Regards Rob -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim McAtee Sent: 04 February 2004 01:04 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Managed DNS Service concerns The more I read your posts, the more it seems what you're asking for is a service that you can use to transparently replace your ISP's DNS servers. I honestly don't think this was ever Tucows intention, but I'd like to put the question to them: Is this a service that is intended to be attractive to resellers because it's something that they can resell to end-users? Or is it meant to be a service attractive primarily to the ISP as a "drop-in" replacement service for a part of their own infrastructure? Here's how I see the difference If it's primarily to be resold, then it must be (a) as idiot-proof as possible and (b) have features that an end-user would be willing to pay for. Things like domain-parking pages and email forwarding are very much things along these lines. If it's primarily a service to be sold to ISPs (the costs of which are either absorbed or passed on in some manner to end-purchasers) then it needs to be (a) a white-label offering whose orgin is as transparent as possible and (b) highly flexible and completely controllable. It's not hard to see the conflict here. The more flexible and more controllable you make it, the less idiot-proof it becomes. The transparent white-labeling, IMO, is primarily attractive to the ISP trying pass the service off as their own. It would be almost impossible to hide from a knowledgeable user who is actually operating the service. Show me a domain reseller that can pass himself off as an accredited registrar once anyone looks at the WHOIS data. Why does the DNS service need to offer a degree of transparency that their domain registration or certificate services don't offer? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WebWiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 3:50 PM Subject: RE: Managed DNS Service concerns > ...maybe it would be more constructive to simply say "Oh, well, this > doesn't meet my needs. I guess I'll find another service offering (or > roll my own) to do what I need it to do. > > I don't believe so .. > If OpenSRS don't get this sort of feedback then they won't know what > areas and customer requirements are not met or where customers think > they have got it wrong - your suggested approach is any suppliers > worst enemy. > > I have concerns about some of the limitations of the DNS service but > more so the actual decision making process behind these limitations. > If the decision making process is flawed for one service it has the > potential to be flawed for others and this could ultimately impact us > all. > > I do not believe that the quality and completeness of the services > starting from when certificate services were introduced are what they > should or could be. Often promised improvements do not appear and > major enhancements do not appear - the prime example being the client > code and its strategic direction (The SourceForge client then not the > SourceForge but all the oft requested features and enhancements of the > "alternative" client are still not implemented in the official client. > > As raised earlier on in this thread by someone else, when the new > services from OpenSRS arrive they are incomplete solutions offerings > without the extra bells and whistles required to differentiate the > offering. > > As an existing customer of OpenSRS I want to see them do well as that > can only be good for me in the long run and it is therefore in my best > interests to shout when I think they have got it wrong. > > I for one am not going to look elsewhere for one element of the > service if I can get the right solution at the right price from a > single supplier and so the consequence of these issues will be lost > customers for all services rather than not winning customers for one > service. If necessary I will look elsewhere but I don't want to have > to do that and unless I voice my concerns OpenSRS don't have an > opportunity to address them.
