On 16 October 2016 at 21:15, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote:
> In message <CAAiTEH_Tn8YXXe9wYMgobeg0Fd3OdY9M4Rey6QQxh0Yg=
> , 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
> interest showing.
> 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.
The problem with the draft is that it doesn't recommend -- it requires.
1) It incorrectly references a non-normative RFC as if it were normative.
2) It includes imperative statements while claiming to be a description of
Neither of these things are supported by your argument.
DNSOP mailing list