Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Richard J. Sexton (At work) wrote:
>
> > Doesn't matter. At least we have COMPETITION in the domain registration
> > business. You're NO LONGER LOCKED IN and the STABILITY OF THE
> > INTERNET is no longer at risk.
> >
> > The fact your domain dosn't work is a small price to pay.
>
> How is this any different from when NSI ran things exclusively?
I xould not resist to answer your question, because I did appreciate the
not-for-the-humor-impaired note from Richard. The current actions
have really bought time under the pretense of a solution, but did not
buy time even as a partial solution.
Now, to your question. At least, when NSI ran things exclusively,
we had someone to complain to and require actions. Now, increasingly,
and this list may wish to confirm it, we hear arguments like the current WHOIS
black-hole (where a registrar may decide not to forward references to another,
in order not to lose click-through ads for example) that has no solution. Also,
the thin-registry model employed in order to achieve COMPETITION has
desenpowered Internet users, that are no longer the holders of a domain name
but merely temporary assignees -- since *all* contacts between the registrant
and the registry is buffered and isolated by the registrar. In fact, only the
registrar is the actual registrant, to the registry. This is a contrivance created
to elude liability for the registry (NSI).
But the long-term failure of such contrivance can already be seen in
the 1999 ruling against NSI -- as the Circuit Court of Fairfax
County, Virginia, found on February 3, 1999, that domain names are
"property" and are subject to judicial sale to satisfy a monetary
judgment against the **registrant**.
So, the edifice will topple. It is a matter of time. Meanwhile, as Richard
humorously says, the fact your domain dosn't work is a small price
to pay.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
