Re: [DNSOP] Asking TLD's to perform checks.

[Tim Wicinski <[e-mail]>]

(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 <[e-mail]>, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 03:25:11PM +0100,
>>   Shane Kerr <[e-mail]> 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.
>
>