[sf-lug] Good domain name registrar

[jim]

     The meaning I had in mind was that
the person who is most likely to be
persistent in a customer business should
be the person who is the registrant.
Another way of (attempting to) say it is
that the owner of the customer business
should probably be the registrant and
certainly keep tabs on the person who
ends up being the registrant.



On 05/03/2015 04:06 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Jim Stockford (jim at well.com):
>
>> In the case of small businesses, I've seen insurmountable problems
>> with the owners of a businesses locked out from managing their own DNS
>> because employees did the original registration and named themselves
>> as the trusted person for the account.
> Let's talk about this concept 'trusted person for the account', and
> flesh it out.
>
> A domain registration involves four role contacts, which can be the same
> person or different people:
>
> Registrant (domain owner)
> Technical Contact
> Administrative Contact
> Billing Contact
>
> The Registrant is considered to have trump authority over everyone else.
> Often, the Registrant is stated to be a corporate entity or some office
> or officer of a corporation implied to be able to speak for the entity.
> Here for example is the Registrant block for google.com from that
> domain's public whois entry:
>
> Registry Registrant ID:
> Registrant Name: Dns Admin
> Registrant Organization: Google Inc.
> Registrant Street: Please contact contact-admin at google.com, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
> Registrant City: Mountain View
> Registrant State/Province: CA
> Registrant Postal Code: 94043
> Registrant Country: US
> Registrant Phone: +1.6502530000
> Registrant Phone Ext:
> Registrant Fax: +1.6506188571
> Registrant Fax Ext:
> Registrant Email: dns-admin at google.com
> Registry Admin ID:
>
>
> Because registrars don't want to be caught in the middle of
> organisational warfare, they tend to have policies saying 'In the event
> of dispute, we will regard as authoritative a written, signed, dated
> paper letter on corporate letterhead from someone who believably claims
> to speak for the corporate executive suite' (or words that effect,
> possibly with notarising of the letter, etc.).
>
> However, under normal circumstances (ones not approaching lawsuit on
> account of dissention), almost all customer interaction with the
> registrar is the customer logging into the registrar's Web interface
> using previously arranged username/password credentials, and therefore
> whoever has a username/password for the Registrant role is considered --
> to a first approximation absent someone sending letterhead -- to wield
> the authority of Registant.
>
> For significant domain changes, such as a request to move the domain to
> a new registrar, or a request to reassign the Registant role to some
> new name, it is common (I won't say universal) for registrars to have
> automatic notification of all four roles, and 24-48 hours for any of the
> roles to raise an objection and block the significant domain change.
>
> The exact nature of all of these arrangements differ between registrars,
> but the above is fairly typical.
>
>
>> The employees leave and some months (or years) later the owners want
>> to make a change and can't because the registrar won't trust them and
>> they can't find the original employees who are the only ones who can
>> authorize changes.
> Someone needs to believably be able to speak for the Registrant.
> This assumes that the Registrant was defined in a sane fashion.
> See google.com example, above, for one that strikes me as fairly
> reasonable.  Also, you will note that the Registrant for domain
> svlug.org is defined as 'President, SVLUG'.  Even though SVLUG
> no longer has Presidents, in the event of the principal volunteers
> needing to send a directive to Joker.com (registrar), we would
> re-activate the 'president at svlug.org' outgoing e-mail account and
> send the directives from there.  In the event of dispute beyond that, we
> would create letterhead for the group, and send a notarised letter.
>
> Registrars follow the logic of pretty much any organisation:  They want
> their asses covered on whatever course of action they take.  They would
> thus accept whatever directive is claimed to speak for Google, Inc. or
> for SVLUG that they feel confident they'd be able to justify in a
> lawsuit as satifying the implied warranty of good-faith effort and fair
> dealing on their part.
>
> In no case should it be necessary to 'find the original employees who
> are the only ones who can authorize changes'.  Registrars have decades
> of experience dealing with organisations in which employees come and go.
> If you as a customer perceive the registrar as refusing to deal with you
> unless 'the original employees who are the only ones who can authorize
> changes' get re-involved, then you are missing something and/or not
> doing something right.
>
>
>> I believe that the owners must ensure that their names are at the
>> highest level of trust for the domain name registry account.
> I don't know what this sentence means, Jim.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
> Information about SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/attachments/20150504/093a74c9/attachment.html>