Incompetance abounds at the InterNIC

Dean Robb pceasy at
Wed Jan 20 01:07:32 UTC 1999

At 23:54 1/19/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Relaxing the requirements for name servers seems like an excellent way
>of making the DNS even more broken than it already is. A number of TLDs
>(.no being one of them) will *enforce* a minimum of two functioning name
>servers for each domain. If you don't like this, you can of course take
>your business elsewhere.

I really can't understand why there'd be a problem with a pay-first policy.
 If a registration is accompanied by CC#, check, etc., it's registered.  If
two registrants want the same domain:  first paid, first served.  

Third party registrars (ISPs, other registries) could execute a "statement
of purpose"-type document with NSI that would allow them to register
without paying first.  That privilege could be revoked if it's abused.

The typical spammer and/or speculator isn't going to sink his/her/it's
money into a throwaway domain name, and legit third-party registrants
aren't likely to deal with a speculator/abuser if their payment privilege
is at risk.

Simple, easy to put into effect, easy to police, solves most of these
problems without hurting service...all of which is, of course, why
InterNIC/NSI won't do it.  At least, in the past they've avoided the simple
solution whenever possible...

Spammers should be investigated by Ken Starr!

Dean Robb
PC-EASY computer services
(757) 495-EASY [3279]

More information about the NANOG mailing list