In message <CAAiTEH_Tn8YXXe9wYMgobeg0Fd3OdY9M4Rey6QQxh0Yg=g0...@mail.gmail.com>
, Matthew Pounsett writes:
> > But not all registries as so constrained. This is BEST current
> > practice not LOWEST COMMON DEMONINATOR practice.
> > GTLD are required to remove records for abuse so removal of record
> > is expected for some conditions so it is not beyond belief that
> > they can change to include these reasons. ICANN still has a committee
> > to maintain the stability of the DNS. Nameserver behavior very
> > much affects that stability.
> The draft can say it would be helpful to take action. The draft can't
> require action. Requiring action isn't describing a best current
> practice. That just won't fly on today's Internet.
I've had TLD's saying they want the hard line to be there as it
backs up their stance.
> If you want to lobby ICANN to modify the gTLD agreements, then we can
> revisit this discussion. But until those are changed the IETF has no
> business insisting on contractually prohibited actions.
The IETF can say what is BEST practice. If gTLD's feel they cannot
meet BEST practice they will not do that. No one can make someone
follow BEST practice.
Every time I hear "But the gTLD's can't do" I see a conflict of
The IETF can recommend things that gTLD's can't do today. There
is nothing wrong with doing that. It puts the IETF's position not
gTLD operator position.
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
DNSOP mailing list