Re: [DNS]

Re: [DNS]

From: David Uzzell <duzzell§>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:12:42 +1100
Kim Davies wrote:
> 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.

Here Here to that Kim but is it ever going to happen in your opion? It 
just seems to keep happpening but there seems to be little to nothing 
that is being done about it :(

Any Ideas as to how it would/could work It would take weeks and weeks 
just to go through and check up on every domain name and be a costly 
excersise but could there be someway of the general public if they 
stumble over these types of things to be able to inform auDA of it and 
supply all the info they can find publicly for it to be looked into?


> 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.
> kim
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
> Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the 
> author, further information at the above URL.
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