Re: host transfers

[Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>]

"Jordyn A. Buchanan" wrote:
> 
> Klaus:
> 
> I just have a couple of questions:
> 
> 1) Much of your suggestion seems to be related to registrars being
> able to refer to name server objects created by other registrars.
> Can't this just as easily be accomplished under EPP's existing model,
> in which name server objects are automatically sponsored by the
> sponsor of their parent domain?  In other words, if name servers can
> always be used by other registrars, why does it matter where the
> sponsorship lies?
> 

1. Other registrars are not able to create name servers in that domain

2. The sponsoring registrar does not have full control over his own
   name servers, i.e. anyone can reference his name server and block
   the deletion of the name server and also the domain the
   name server belongs to.

> 2) As far as I can tell from your examples, the only circumstance in
> which it becomes important for a non-sponsoring registrar to be able
> to create a new name server within a domain is a situation like this:
> 
> >situation #3: R2 has an own object for ns3.A.com, R1 not
> >
> >
> >domain       A.com, N1, N2 (R1)
> >name server  N1: ns1.A.com, 1.1.1.1 (R1)
> >name server  N2: ns2.A.com, 2.2.2.2 (R1)
> >
> >domain       B.com, N4, N5 (R2)
> >name server  N4: ns1.B.com, 4.4.4.4 (R2)
> >name server  N5: ns3.A.com (R2)
> 
> Presumably this is because the registrant now likes R2 more than R1.
> Assuming transfers work well, why can't they simply transfer A.com to
> R2 and then perform the action?

because they have to pay for. People usually don't transfer domains
if 1 1/2 years or so are left from the registration period. And, eventually,
they have some other domains registered via a third registrar.


> What is the value in a single
> registrant being able to manage domains (and objects, such as name
> servers, within those domains) across multiple registrars?  This is
> not clear to me, and seems to be a fundamental premise of your
> argument.

Money, satisfaction with the service provided by the registrars/resellers etc.
And they don't shift hundreds of domains around in one step.

> 
> 3) In the example above, how does the owner of A.com prevent the
> creation of ns3.A.com by R2 if they *don't want* anyone else to use
> that name server?

Why should he want this? The registry is only a mapping of the real world, not
vice versa. If someone creates a name server in the registry which does not
exist in the real world, what can he do with it? - absolutely nothing. That
name server must be listed in the A.com's zone file (which is hopefully under
the control of registrant of A.com) to be usable. The other way around: The
current model does not really prevent anything. As long as the name server is
registered, it can be used by anyone. And for so-called non-authoritive name
servers (those with different TLDs) there is absolutely no protection. I
believe, that most of the new TLDs will be served by name servers in the
existing ccTLDs/gTLDs. So the restrictions are becoming more annoying than
helpful.

> 
> Jordyn

I don't think that my model is optimal, surely not. The cause I'm talking
about it is that I am somehow uncomfortable with the EPP's model and similar
ones. It has the fixed premise that there is one registry, N registrars, that
each registrant directly or indirectly registers all his domains with a single
registrar.
This is far from the reality. We, for example, are a member of the Council of
Registrars (CORE). Technically, CORE, as an abstract entity, is the registrar,
and we are a reseller. People are directly registering domains with us, but we
also have resellers and we know that some of these even have resellers for
their own. So this is a real hierarchical system. Resellers and registrants
choose from time to time to change their source for domains and occassionally
jump over the border to another registrar.
Well, it may not be the purpose of the registry system to model the *whole*
world (I think Scott once argued like this). But the part it models should
reflect the reality. This rule is violated for all object types - contacts,
name servers and domains. The behavior of the system depends on the question
which registrar sponsors the specific object and not which registrant is the
owner of the object. Well, the registrar acts as a representative of the
registrant. But the model does not allow the fact that more than one registrar
may represent a single registrant in a certain case (e.g. creation of a name
server in a domain of a different registrar). On the other hand, it allows
free sharing of contacts and (existing!) name servers, whether the domains
belong to the same registrant or not. This is quite contradictionary! As I
tried to explain in my earlier e-mails, there is no risk, neither in terms of
stability nor terms of misuse, of allowing the unlimited use of all name
servers. In fact, the world largest ccTLD, .de, works this way (and well).


regards,

Klaus Malorny


___________________________________________________________________________
     |       |
     | knipp |                   Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
      -------                           Technologiepark
                                        Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9
     Dipl. Inf. Klaus Malorny           44227 Dortmund
     Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de             Tel. +49 231 9703 0