I said all of this years ago as a suggestion for the next round of contract renewals (since I was told that it had to be added to the contracts first).
Best of luck. Personally, I think it should have been a requirement at least 5 years ago. Owen On Apr 9, 2013, at 16:48 , Eric Brunner-Williams <brun...@nic-naa.net> wrote: > On 4/9/13 4:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >> It's about time certification was lost for failure to handle AAAA >> records. The same should also apply for DS records. > > You can suggest this to the compliance team. It seems to me (registrar > hat == "on") that in 2.5 years time, when Staff next conducts a > registrar audit, that this is a reasonable expectation of an > accreditation holding contracted party. It simply needs to be added to > the base RAA agreement. > > Joe _may_ be in a position to encourage the compliance team to develop > a metric and a test mechanism, but at present, the compliance team > appears to be capable of WHOIS:43 harvesting (via Kent's boxen) and > occasional WHOIS:80 scraping, and little else beyond records > reconciliation for a limited sample. NB, investing equal oversight > labor in all current (and former) RAA holders is (a) a significant > duplication of effort for little possible benefit where shell > registrars are concerned, and (b) treats registrars (and their > registrants' interests in fair dealing) with a few hundreds of domains > and registrars (and their registrants' interests) with 10% or more of > the total gTLD registry market indifferently by policy and enforcement > tool design. The latter means most registrants (those with performance > contracts from registrars with 10% market share) receive several > orders of magnitude less contractual oversight protections than > registrants using registrars with a few hundred "names under management". > > IMHO, that's a problem that could be fixed. > > Eric