>Yes, me too. I use a PO Box for the exact same reasons and we can
>surely relate this convenience to the one, I believe, we
>generally expect to have in the portability of a domain name.

I haven't read back that far yet, but I didn't consider a PO Box, whcih is
exactly why I have one also :)

Isn't it amazing how the minds of so many can create so much confusion,
only to eventually find an answer?

>Interestingly the point Adam made, by way of an example of how we
>_don't_ have portability in certain current services - ie phone
>numbers, has just taken on new relevance:
>
>The ACCC are (apparently) forcing Telstra to provide portability
>of phone numbers following pressure from Optus.

This has been an ongoing issue for quite come time.  It's only relevance as
I understand, and I'll ask when I speak with the ACCC on Monday, is that
people who switch to Optus PSTN are currently required to change their
number.  The ACCC as I understand is trying to invoke sections of the
Telecommunications ACT to encourage Number portability between carriers.

In some respects I support this.  It's a great idea.  But lets use this
example further.

XYZ Pty Limited has a phone number 1234 5678.

They move to the other side of the city - cheaper rent, bigger space.
Address changes, phone number changes but company name doesn't.

Commonality.

Could you imagine making IP addresses portable to the last digit?  What a
routing mess we'd have - unless Telstra owed it all.

So the Domain Name in itself is like a Company Name, not likely to change,
but the Address - the IP Number - is.

>That's all I know
>and this is apparently for regular joe numbers. Thus the number
>(domain) can move across telco's (isps). 

No, the Number == IP Address
The Name == the Joe Blow.

>But, excellent as that may be, it's not the point, which remains
>that you and I and most, dare I say any person half experienced
>in dns - knows that domain names are _inherently portable_. Optus

Yep, as above.  I support Portable Domain Names from the IP address
perspective.  Gosh it only makes sense.

>had to prove that Telstra could do it technically.

It's technically possible to route a single IP address via a different path
to the opposite side of the country.  Whether it's sensible or not is
another question.

>If we don't act to educate and enforce the proactive advertising
>of portability or non-portability in the sale of domain names,

I feel if someone is selling a domain name in an SLD that is "generic" and
doesn't relate to the ISP's own name or private identiy, then it shodu lbe
portable if they sellers goal is market penetration.

Failure to meet this is restrictive trade and is written in the Trade
Practices Act.

>then there will be ongoing confusion which can only be a negative
>for all of us. It's a ripoff to the consumer (to not be advised)
>and it's unfair on isp's who're providing portability (and at a
>fair price). 

And worse.  I totally Agree.

>Businesses stake their entire net future on their domain name. We
>here things like 'if you don't have the net on the agenda then
>you don't have a business plan'

YUCK.  That's hard marketing.

>and yet a company could find
>themselves locked into the negative option of being tied to one
>isp for life.

YUCK!  That's bad education.  Anyone want to chip in on some Newspaper Ads?

>Such an irony that with 600 isps to choose from
>you'd have to sigh and concede that you'd made a bad choice in
>your 'internet partner'. It mustn't happen, not for the consumer

It will over time sort itself out, like any inductry issue.  It's a shame
many have to be burnt first to educate the rest.

Bit like ADNA people not listening to the International people about DNS
really.

>nor for the reputation of the industry. As the TLDs and 2LDs
>broaden this issue will get out of control. Let's fix it, at the
>local level, now. 

Forget Local.  Global ... fix it globally.

Don't forget however that AOL sells names under AOL.COM and they are as I
understand non portable also.

>To move on with this thread, I need to see a consensus on the
>portability issue and then we can try and agree on whether we
>should press for action on proactive informing of the market
>about portability. 

YES.  I'm all for it.

>Apologies Tony, if I'm preaching to the converted and using this
>reply as a soapbox but when you're pushing shit uphill it kind of
>gets this way...

I don't feel that was necessary.  I feel all factions should support this
issue for the protection of the consumer and any that don't should be made
publicly aware.



_______________________________________________________________________
Adam Todd               mailto:at§ah.net   mailto:at§aus
http://adamtodd.ah.net  http://www.ah.net  http://www.aursc.ah.net
http://www.ah.net/lists/lwgate