3 ms·

I understand why this is a common issue, but I also believe that this is indicative of organizational dysfunction. It takes a few seconds to document what a do

I understand why this is a common issue, but I also believe that this is indicative of organizational dysfunction. It takes a few seconds to document what a domain is used for / what department is using it. If you have 5,000 domains, you're already doing this. As well, at that scale you're likely using an enterprise domain registrar, so there is absolutely zero possibility of a domain expiring. (If you're not ... phew) Many other industries with zero tolerance for failure are able to successfully implement multi-layered approaches for anticipating and eliminating issues. Yet, IT manages to find excuses to explain why a $10 domain can't be reliably renewed. That's wild. That's embarrassing.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> It takes a few seconds to document what a domain is used for / what department is using it. Sure, and then you have a piece of documentation that says the domain is being used by "IT" for "account services" and the person reading this thinks it's the web server administrators using it for customer accounts and they say they're not using it. > As well, at that scale you're likely using an enterprise domain registrar, so there is absolutely zero possibility of a domain expiring. The company where the domain expires for non-payment and the company with 5000 domains don't have to be the same company, or the same division of the same company. > Many other industries with zero tolerance for failure are able to successfully implement multi-layered approaches for anticipating and eliminating issues. Yet, IT finds excuses to explain why a $10 domain can't be reliably renewed. That's wild. That's embarrassing. The traditional approach to this is to operate with redundancy. Domain registrations are a single point of failure consequent of having a single global hierarchical namespace. One way to mitigate this is to relax the global uniqueness requirement in instances where it isn't necessary, like internal use domains, so you can't "lose" the domain since nobody has exclusive control over it. To do that you'd need to carve out a piece of the hierarchy for that use so it doesn't conflict with other names that have to be globally unique. Which is the current proposal.
- iscoelho 3y ago
  As demonstrated by a majority of Fortune 100 companies (including google.com & microsoft.com), the industry accepted solution to this is an enterprise domain registrar, for example MarkMonitor or CSC. A disproportionate amount of the internet depends on those 2 domains, and even so, there is zero redundancy for the situation you are describing. It's just that simple though: there doesn't need to be. This is a solved problem that does not occur in competently run organizations. Domains do not need to be a failure point, and if they are, you should put more focus on resolving the deeper issues within your organization.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> It takes a few seconds to document what a domain is used for / what department is using it. Sure, and then you have a piece of documentation that says the domain is being used by "IT" for "account services" and the person reading this thinks it's the web server administrators using it for customer accounts and they say they're not using it. > As well, at that scale you're likely using an enterprise domain registrar, so there is absolutely zero possibility of a domain expiring. The company where the domain expires for non-payment and the company with 5000 domains don't have to be the same company, or the same division of the same company. > Many other industries with zero tolerance for failure are able to successfully implement multi-layered approaches for anticipating and eliminating issues. Yet, IT finds excuses to explain why a $10 domain can't be reliably renewed. That's wild. That's embarrassing. The traditional approach to this is to operate with redundancy. Domain registrations are a single point of failure consequent of having a single global hierarchical namespace. One way to mitigate this is to relax the global uniqueness requirement in instances where it isn't necessary, like internal use domains, so you can't "lose" the domain since nobody has exclusive control over it. To do that you'd need to carve out a piece of the hierarchy for that use so it doesn't conflict with other names that have to be globally unique. Which is the current proposal.

iscoelho 3y ago
As demonstrated by a majority of Fortune 100 companies (including google.com & microsoft.com), the industry accepted solution to this is an enterprise domain registrar, for example MarkMonitor or CSC. A disproportionate amount of the internet depends on those 2 domains, and even so, there is zero redundancy for the situation you are describing. It's just that simple though: there doesn't need to be. This is a solved problem that does not occur in competently run organizations. Domains do not need to be a failure point, and if they are, you should put more focus on resolving the deeper issues within your organization.