Re: [DNS]

Re: [DNS]

From: Kim Davies <kim§>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:28:19 +0100
Quoting magic2147&#167; on Tuesday December 02, 2003:
| How did Melbourne IT let this one go through and what the grounds? What have any 
| registrars got to say? What has auDA got to say about such going ons?

The problem, as I see it, is that registrars are merely required to have
registrants to "warrant" they are meeting the rules, without actually
testing compliance themselves too closely.

Naturally, such a scheme doesn't work without abusers being followed up
and being stripped of their domains. Personally I would like to see
egregious abuses of the current policy punished harshly.

I am a fan of policies that restrict domains to those that are
someway connected to the name, but a situation where you have a
pseudo-FCFS-only system through loopholes is worse than an open
FCFS-only policy.

Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:07 UTC