4 ms·
I struggle to see why this is problematic, to be honest. They (the registrar, not puri.sm) didn't pay their bills, so they get turned off. The story doesn't rel
by mseebach 9y ago
I struggle to see why this is problematic, to be honest. They (the registrar, not puri.sm) didn't pay their bills, so they get turned off. The story doesn't relay to what extent the registrar received reasonable and timely warnings about this, although with a bit of guesswork, it doesn't feel absurd that perhaps they simply failed to act on such warnings, like, at all.
If a SaaS doesn't pay their AWS bills, they get turned off, it's not on AWS to keep the SaaS' customers running, and if AWS doesn't pay their electricity bill - - etc.
- rdl 9y agoThe registrar is merely the path to edit registry records; most of the ICANN agreements and registry-registrar agreements are structured to minimize exposure of registrants to bad/failed/incompetent/evil registrars. There are some registries which don't have registrars, and in that case "suspend the registrant's domain name until paid" would be a reasonable expectation, but it's definitely the expectation of most registrants that their registrar isn't providing availability-critical service, merely facilitating updates. (Unless the registrar is also providing DNS hosting, which is generally a bad idea IMO.)
- walrus01 9y agoPart of the problem is that icann policies for legacy ccTLD network engineering and backend support systems are very lax compared to the operational and technical requirements for a new gTLD.