On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Kim Davies wrote:

> At 21:07 9/07/2002 +1000, you wrote:
>  > <snip, re should mit contact domain holders re their domain>
> 
> A more fundamental question that should be asked (in relation to domain
> names) is:
> 
>     Should an administrative contact for a domain, be contacted
>     regarding administrative matters?
> 
> If the answer is yes, should administrative contacts know about the
> domain? Should the administrative contract be the ISP or agent if the
> domain name holder is clueless? If so, how do you prevent abuse of this
> particularly with regard to ISPs and agents who aren't amenable to
> this being changed later?

IMO the issues raised by your example (that of a rogue ISP/agent that hijacks 
a domain name) are more manageable than the current issues that are raised
when domain owners that don't have a clue (through no fault of their own,
I might add) are contacted about issues relating to their domains, and they
get confused.

Partially, this is because there are only a few hundred ISPs to be managed;
but there are thousands of domain name holders (it's a size thing :).

By providing a mechanism whereby the ISP/agent can be overridden with the
appropriate documentation presented by the domain name owner; and by 
providing suitable punishments for the rogues (e.g. suspension of
domain name seller licence) I think the effects of this could be 
minimised. A domain name seller, if they *know* that 'rogue' behaviour
will result in the suspension of their income stream, should toe the line.

Regards,

Saliya