> Thats all correct, and I do agree with that,
> I've got far more time for the RFC than ICANN.

No comment, on the grounds that I may end up having to deal with ICANN on a
more conciliatory basis in the future. :)

> However we don't follow the RFC explicitly pretty regularly. For

Agreed that Give and Take is part of any cooperative system.

> really shouldn't put a CNAME on the root of a domain. Yet not only do
> we do it, big entities like Google actively encourage it.

No comment, on the grounds... :)

> Similarly, and I'd have to take a look at the RFC, I don't believe SPF
> records in the TXT record of a domain were exactly accounted for in the

Good example. In fact RFC 5.... something... 5507 talks about it being
better to create new record types to include new functionality. However SPF
is part of the RFCs. 4408. It just that it uses TXT records :) 

-- James :) Collins - Head Office * +61-7-3823-5150 *
   ,-_|\    Australasian Online Services Registry
  /      *  Sydney Office      - +61-2-8011-3237
  \_,-._/   Canberra Office    - +61-2-6100-7721
        v   Fax Number         - +61-7-3823-5152
www.aosreg.com.au - P.O. Box 1073, Capalaba, Qld, 4157