In message , Suzanne Woolf writ
es:
> The no-response draft has a similar issue IMO, in that it's quite
> prescriptive about what a certain set of players (TLD operators) should
> do about identified problems, and silent on advice to anyone else
> (registrars who have customer relationships with d
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Suzanne Woolf
wrote:
> (no hats)
>
> I think the other way to frame the use of strongly prescriptive language
> in this document would be to leave the intended status at Informational,
> and introduce it as an example of what some operators consider good
> practi
(no hats)
George,
I've been thinking about this post, and this general topic, for quite some
time, and I think I have a coherent answer, but the WG needs to weigh in.
Generally speaking, I think it deserves more attention than it's gotten from
us, which is why I'm writing now.
I think I'm act
