Re: Regestry Identifiers

[Vince Wolodkin <wolodkin@digitalink.com>]

Christopher Ambler wrote:
> 
> Rick Wesson (>>) and Dave Crocker (>) said...
> 
> >>Would it be better to work out a common set of templates or is everybody
> >>going to use the ones the InterNic uses. Would it not be better that an
> >>IETF WG define these templates and write a public domain parser for them?
> 
> > This sounds like an entirely reasonable approach, to me.  It has
> > the benefit of not requiring the IAHC to get into the middle of it but,
> > instead, let the usual standards process develop and mandate it.  An
> > effort like the IAHC can then get by with "implement and conform to all
> > relevant Internet standards" languge and be done with it.
> 
> I don't know if I agree. Our web interface for .web is, IMHO, much easier
> to use that InterNIC's templates. While we have the ability to parse an
> InterNIC template, we've made some design decisions that make them
> somewhat redundant. For example, we've collapsed the "billing" and
> "administrative" contact into one. We found that most registrations had
> them the same, and it's one less data item. If required to have both, as
> the InterNIC does, that's mandating we abandon what we think is a good
> design decision. Fair? I don't think so.
> 

I think, in general you will find that ISP's who register domains will
make the ISP the technical contact, the domain-owner the admin contact. 
They seem to disagree on who the billing contact should be though.  I
think, Chris, that to play the game you are going to have to add a
contact.  I have also toyed with the idea of making our billing contacts
our comptroller.  

When you say "we found most registrations had them the same", what data
did you look at, your own .web or InterNIC data?

Vince Wolodkin