Re: bit.ly urls

On Sun, July 24, 2011 20:58, JC Dill wrote:
> On 24/07/11 5:51 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
>>
>> I realize it was a quick thought.  However, it doesn't work, doesn't address
>> the
>> actual problem,
>
> Maybe I missed something, but AFAICT you haven't articulated what you
> think the "actual problem" is,

I tried to explain; that explanation didn't work with you.  That's not
surprising, because the "domain name industry" is actually pretty complex, and
I'm probably not very good at explaining.  I think the real problems (there are
actually several, not just one) are ones you simply aren't aware of. I find your
tone somewhat oppressive, however, and it's therefore not worth the trouble to
me to make any further attempts to explain.

> aside from "how do we make money doing
> this?".  My position is you make money on some of the searches (when
> people register domains with you) and you link off to other registrars
> for the TLDs you don't have contracts to register with, but by searching
> ALL TLDs you become the "go to" place to search to see if a particular
> domain might be available in ANY TLD, and by doing so you gain business
> for the TLDs you register.

Yes, what you are proposing is perfectly clear.  But it would also be perfectly
clear if you proposed to increase the voltage available from a flashlight
battery by using a transformer.  It just won't work, but anyone who tries to
explain why needs to explain AC vs DC and how a transformer really works...

>> ignores the issue of abuse,
>
> What reason would there be for abuse problems to get bigger or worse
> just because you search more TLDs?  You have to put in a system to deal
> with abuse even when you only register .com, .net, and .org - why do you
> think the solution won't scale if you include searching other TLDs?

It's not an issue of scale; you are adding a new modality of search.  Currently
registrars search registries with which they have a contractual relationship,
using special protocols (eg, EPP); your algorithm adds going to registries with
which there are no contractual relationships and no special protocols (just
whois).  These are different abuse regimes.  Note 1: this isn't the only issue,
just an example of one.  Note 2: "contractual relationships" is a term that
includes a lot of stuff.

>
> If you don't see the value in the idea, don't do it.  But so far nobody
> has shown me any good excuses for why it hasn't been done so far - which
> still mystifies me.

Explaining a complicated situation takes time and energy.  In this case it seems
like explaining into a strong headwind, as it were.

Best Regards
Kent

-- 
Eat sushi frequently. - Avi
[email protected] is the human contact address.
[email protected] is the list posting address.
See below URL for subscribe/unsubscribe and list options:
http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list