RE: host transfers

[Sheer El-Showk <sheer@saraf.com>]

> I still think it a VERY bad idea to allow transfer of a host like
> ns1.example.com separate from a transfer of example.com, but there may be
> some merit to allowing transfer of ns1.example.foo within a registry not
> authoritative for .foo.

Scott I am completely in agreement with you as regards transfers of native
TLD nameservers.  To allows ns1.example.com to be transfered without
example.com will break any reasonably authorization systems within the
transfering registrars (since a registrar will likeley want limit
nameserver modifications to the owner of the parent domain just like
registries do) and give two different entities (the two different
registrars) control over different elements of a domain.  My comment was
not directed towards these nameservers, but rather towards non-TLD
nameservers which are more like domains (in that they are registered on a
first-come-first-serve basis and access to them is controlled only by the
registrant).  I think in the heated argument about associated host
transfers (subordinate nameservers of a domain) a while back people
forgot that there are nameservers without any associated domains and
these need to be transferable as well.

>
> Anyone else?  It's been a while since this topic was originally discussed on
> the list, so maybe people have had time to think about things for a while.
>

I certainly don't think we should reverse the requirement and limitation
that in-TLD hosts are only transfered with their parent domain.

Regards,
Sheer