(as chair)
I was the one who told Mark I liked the document but we needed to do
less badgering of TLDs (my words, not his) and more on giving them
advice on the best practices.
I'm stuck in the office in San Francisco this week, but I will read the
newer versions. It sounds like something we can adopt, though it may be
contentious and need some work. I'm not against contentious drafts, and
I'm not against doing some work.
tim
On 11/11/15 3:18 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <20151111104833.gb29...@sources.org>, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 03:25:11PM +0100,
Shane Kerr <sh...@time-travellers.org> wrote
a message of 49 lines which said:
My guess is that part of the resistance is because you are going to
be asking people to spend money on something that does not provide
them or their customers any (direct) benefits. Further, it breaks
the registry-registrar model in some cases, where registries are
kept away from registrants by a 1.6 km-high wall.
+1 && +1
We at AFNIC have a long experience here since, during many years, we
requested successful technical checks before registering a domain (at
this time, there was no registration without delegation). It annoyed
people a lot and we got a reputation of pain-in-the-ass stupid french
people, always insisting on local and anti-american requirments (see
<http://www.circleid.com/posts/afnic_dns_server_redelegation/> for a
good example).
I'm not eager to try it again, unless people pledge to support us
during flames on social networks.
Part of writing the I-D and trying to consensus through DNSOP rather
than going as a I-S is to provide the a backstop for registries
that check. The more registries that check the better for everyone.
Support in numbers.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
