> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Dillon [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 1999 9:22 PM
> To: IFWP Discussion List
> Subject: [ifwp] Re: What does the NIC in InterNIC mean? "Network
> Incom petence Consortium" (fwd)
>
> On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > [Gomes, Chuck] This would mean that a verification process would
> > have to be established. Anyone not having already been verified would
> be
> > rejected or put into a prepayment queue.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Excellent!
> This answers another common criticism of the Internic in that it does not
> require prepayment which causes many of the speculator problems. What you
> have just suggested turns the whole situation around. You are now saying
> that prepayment will now be required on *ALL* domain name registrations
> unless an entity has established a prior business relationship and is
> therefore, verified. This, in addition to the $1 application fee, would go
> a long way to answering the valid criticisms that have been levelled at
> the Internic.
>
> > > Now once I am validated with the Internic and have recieved my NIC
> handle
> > > (MD130 is mine) I can then register domain names at the rate of $69
> for
> > > the first two years and $34 for annual renewals plus teh $1
> application
> > > fee in each instance. It would even be reasonable to charge something
> like
> > > $5 for the validation process and NIC handle in the first place.
> > [Gomes, Chuck] Are you proposing that we charge $1 even if the
> > request is rejected?
>
> Yes.
>
> > If so, how would that be collected and more
> > importantly enforced. That was the gist of my original question. A
> > collection process can be fairly costly. Collecting $1 would not cover
> the
> > costs.
>
> It is a business decision as to what size of an account is put out to a
> collection agency. But once a debt is incurred, if it is not paid, then it
> is perfectly legitimate to deny service until the debt is paid. In other
> words, if I were to request to register masushita.com and that request was
> rejected, I now have a $1 debt. When it comes time for the annual renewal
> for memra.com, you would send me a bill for $36, $34 for renewal, $1 for
> the renewal application and $1 for the matsushita.com rejection. If I only
> sent a check for $35, you would apply $1 to the matsushita.com rejection,
> and $1 to the renewal application and the remaining $33 to the memra.com
> renewal. Then you would email me informing me that if I do not remit the
> additional dollar, you will not process the memra.com renewal fee and will
> charge an additional $1 for the remove transaction. This is a common
> commercial scenario, especially in businesses which deal in hard goods and
> charge order handling fees and restocking fees.
[Gomes, Chuck]
What if someone else tries to register the name? Do they also have
to pay the extra dollar?
> > > a valid handle, you bounce it back. If the handle is valid but not
> > > associated with the given domain, you bounce it back.
> > [Gomes, Chuck] How would a handle be associated with a domain that
> > is not yet registered?
>
> If the domain does not yet exist then you don't need to perform this
> check. But if this is a renewal then you should check that the handle is
> associated with the domain.
>
> > > $1 fee. However, if you receive more than x applications for a single
> > > domain you start bouncing them all back out of concern for your
> customer's
> > > financial well-being and your own concern about being able to collect
> the
> > > fees. The number x could be something like 20 or 25.
> > [Gomes, Chuck] Does every request (duplicate or not) cost $1?
>
> Yes. Of course if there are extenuating circumstances such as a
> misconfigured mail server, you are at liberty to forgive the $1 charges on
> some number of email messages.
[Gomes, Chuck] This is a lot of manual work for $1.
> By the way, has anyone ever raised the idea within Network Solutions of
> having a Chief Technical Officer who sits on the senior management
> committee along with the CFO, CEO, etc. and who takes responsibility for
> making high-level technology decisions and for bringing important
> technical issues to the management committee? This is quite common in
> Silicon Valley companies and I think most users of the Internic services
> would agree that many of the Internic's woes could have been avoided if
> they had a CTO rather than pushing technical issues down to lower levels
> of the organization chart.
[Gomes, Chuck] Engineers are involved in all of our technology
decisions.
> --
> Michael Dillon - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Check the website for my Internet World articles - http://www.memra.com
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ___END____________________________________________
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
