On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Dassa wrote:

> |> > impact of a hosting provider or ISP going out of business or
> providing
> |> > shabby service would have even more impact than DNS being down.
> |>
> |> ? Nobody uses IP addresses to advertise their services. If
> |> your DNS is down, *everything* stops working properly.
> 
> But it can take a minimum of time to bring everything back whilst if you
> loose hosting or connection it can often takes weeks or months.

I don't agree with this statement. It is *far easier* to change a hosting
provider for an existing domain name than it is to create and then publicise a 
completely new domain name. If zero investment has gone into publicity for
the first domain name, then *possibly* they could be of comparable difficulty 
- but who the hell registers a domain name then doesn't publicise it ?
(i.e. why do you need the domain name in the first place if you're not
using it?)

> |> One of the points behind registering your own domain name
> |> (rather than use
> |> foo.isp.net.au (waves :) :) is that this is supposed to give
> |> you some security.
> 
> Really, how many registries have complaints about shabby service, domain
> hijackings and various other poor performance issues?  How many people
> have lost domains through the fact resellers do not provide them with
> the correct information.  There are no guarantees unless you make sure
> you are on top of everything, not something the regular business person
> would do.  One of the reasons they don't usually register domains
> directly but use third parties, who often let them down.

And this is inherent in DNS providers vs. hosting/connectivity providers ? No.
Alternatively, does this argument apply 'more' to TLD operators ? No. 
The service level provided by each registry/registrar doesn't relate to 
the level in the DNS at which the combination operates.

> Providing you have control over the domain which is something you will
> find a majority of businesses don't have.  They use third parties to
> register their domains and don't even get listed in the whois fully a
> lot of the time.

Even if you *don't* have control over the domain - with the appropriate 
documentation and in the appropriate higher-level domain space, you *can
get* control over it. 

> True, but then a third level registered name is usually not the main
> hostname but an extra to provide alternatives as a rule.  It adds
> another layer of protection.

Maybe. I'd question just how much "protection" it's offering, for the money.
Seems to me business is better off registering in multiple TLDs if they're
that paranoid about their registrar services. 

> |> I think that privately-run registries have their place. They
> |> offer in general the opportunity to have 'your own' domain
> |> name for much lower cost than registering in the TLDs. I
> |> don't think that they are given serious consideration by
> |> enterprise, for a very good reason: the savings are
> |> outweighed by the potential costs.
> 
> Misleading really, there are more potential costs involved when
> businesses don't fully understand the processes and don't have true
> control over the name.  Look at how many names get dropped just because
> someone didn't realise the renewal was due and had to be paid within a
> certain time.  Knowledge and control are the two main factors necessary
> and businesses as a rule don't have either.

This argument applies just as well to n-level names as second-level ones.

The point that I was trying to make is that a business who tries to save
$100 per annum by using a n-level name is probably 
doing themselves a disservice because of the extra dependencies that 
are introduced (on all the lower levels). 

No offence is intended to n-level name operators.

Regards,

Saliya