Sounds to me like a good argument for a more flexible licencing structure.

If registrants were able to register names for 1, 2, 5 & 10 years this would
potentially significantly reduce this problem as it wouldn't be possible
to deduce the expiry date by simply adding 2 years to the creation date.

Not to mention that it would create more choice for the consumer...

jon

>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
>From: "C.L Ginge" <cyrille.lefevre&#167;scifi-art.com>
>To: <dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au>
>Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 01:23:37 +1000
>Subject: RE: [DNS] Interesting IRA
>
>
>Hello Mark,
>
>Doing a whois on a .com.au domain name ( using aunic.net for example )
>displays the creation date.
>since .com.au domain names are registered for 2 years, it is easy to add
>2
>years to find the expiry date...
>Which means that removing the expiry date is really not sufficient to
>prevent misuse of the data.
>Correct me if I am wrong.
>
>example : http://www.aunic.net/cgi-bin/whois.aunic?internetnamegroup.com.au
>
>ING's domain name expires on the 21st of June this year.
>That can probably be fixed in a reasonable amount of time ( a few minutes
>)
>at low cost ( probably $0 )
>
>if I am wrong, well, correct me, I wish to learn !
>
>Now the other thing is, an organised company using such practices would
have
>the whole data sitting comfortably in a nice neat database ( sucking it
all
>at once with a nice script is so easy ), which would enables them to use
>hundreds of thousands of data for the next 50 years and make a profit out
>of
>it, basically removing dates or even the whole data wouldn't have an impact
>on their practice since they already have the data.
>
>Removing the dates can only have an effect on newcomers that would think
>about doing what ING, IRA and DDNS are doing in the future.
>
>Thank you for your time
>
>Ginge
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Hughes [mailto:effectivebusiness&#167;pplications.com.au]
>Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 12:17 AM
>To: dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
>Subject: RE: [DNS] Interesting IRA
>
>
>I received offers in the paper mail yesterday from Internet Registrations
>Australia to renew two com.au domain names.
>
>I like getting spam paper mail as much (as little) as I like getting spam
>email.  But I'm pleasantly surprised by the actual content of the renewal
>offers - they're far, far, less 'scam-like' then the previous stuff I have
>received from various companies.
>
>
>Some thoughts on this IRA one:
>
>
>The information appears to be accurate, with the following exceptions:
>
>1. The info in the FAQ section on the back re 'channel partners' of
>Melbourne IT is clearly incorrect - as confirmed on this list by Melbourne
>IT.
>
>2. The statement "We will not be beaten on price or quality of service"
>appears to be a blatant porky-pie, as I don't believe that Internet
>Registrations Australia is unaware that the Registrar, Melbourne IT, offers
>the same com.au renewal service direct to com.au Registrants for an amount
>considerably less than the A$198 for two years that IRA is offering.
>
>3. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that the statement "I have read and
>understand the terms and conditions of registration as found at
>www.registrations.com.au/terms" that's next to the box for signature may
>have poor legal standing.   My guess is that IRA might have trouble making
>that stick if it got to a court, or even to the ACCC.  I think the actual
>terms and conditions would need to be a bit 'closer' to the signature (such
>as on the paper), not just off in the ether on some web site somewhere,
for
>any independent assessment to come to the conclusion that it was reasonable
>for the signatory to have read them.
>
>
>
>
>On the plus side, it clearly states:
>
>"You do not have to renew your domain name registration through Internet
>Registrations Australia"
>
>and
>
>"There are several companies that compete for the renewal of domain
>licences"
>
>and it also makes clear that it is a renewal advice, not a tax invoice.
>
>
>
>The renewal advices appear to have the correct domain name renewal dates.
>This data hasn't come from the AUNIC whois, as the AUNIC data doesn't
>include renewal dates.  So its either been extrapolated based on the
>original domain name registration date, or its come from the  Melbourne
IT
>database, which of course is the database that holds the actual renewal
>dates.
>
>The domain name renewal dates are more than 60 days away.  This point does
>not appear to be in violation of any published auDA policy that I can find.
>
>
>Regards, Mark
>
>Mark Hughes
>Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd
>effectivebusiness&#167;pplications.com.au
>www.pplications.com.au
>+61 4 1374 3959
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
>Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
>author, further information at the above URL.  (323 subscribers.)
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
>Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
>
>author, further information at the above URL.  (323 subscribers.)
>