Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG
Kurt Jaeger pi at complx.LF.net
Mon Sep 13 11:20:34 CEST 1999
Hi! > >> It may indeed be that only registries (only registries are > >> members of CENTR) need to be involved in TLD issues. > >> Is there another view ? > > Basically, if they come to common standards, then there's no > > need to intervene 8-) > Hope you are aware that the registrars under COM/NET /ORG > are allowed to have different policies as well. I'm not only talking policies. Having a common standard on that level would be nice, but it's not the only issue. The technical/workflow part of the delegation process might be subject to "some" standardisation. Every registry has its own collection of templates, fields that *must* be filled, rules about SOA records/whatever. Modify-Requests, registering nameservers, deleting domains, all this is different for each country. > I'm not against harmonization but you may also be aware the > most commonly used policy, the one from NSI, is considered > a debacle, at least with respect to marks. Would it help > if anybody would adopt something that is considered a flop ? I not only find the policy of NSI sub-optimal, but also its whois response format (among other issues). > > I'm not sure whether this deviation from common ground is obvious > > to the TLDs themselves, as they normally only deal with their > > own TLD 8-) > We know quite well what's happening outside our territory, don't > be afraid ;-). Well, then ask yourself: how much different is your workflow, e.g. from the one from .at 8-) ? -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 21 years to go ! LF.net GmbH pi at LF.net Oberon.net GmbH pi at oberon.net Vor dem Lauch 23 fon +49 711 90074-23 Friedrich-Ebert-Str.1 D-70567 Stuttgart fax +49 711 7289041 40210 Duesseldorf fon +49 211 179253-11 For Redmond: "nuke the site from orbit -- it's the only way to be sure." -------- Logged at Mon Sep 13 13:33:36 CEST 1999 ---------
[ tld-wg Archives ]