>I would be happy with moving to 1 year minimum as a first step (which is
>consistent with .com).

- I agree.


>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
>From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin&#167;melbourneit.com.au>
>To: "'dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au'" <dns§lists.auda.org.au>
>Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 16:28:06 +1000 
>Subject: [DNS] Protocol issues
>
>
>Hello Michael,
>
>> >
>> 
>> The transfer policy that was made public clearly stated that 
>> it would be a
>> new record and 2 years <renewal> would have to also be 
>> attached. The EPP
>> <transfer> has been made into <delete-register> function.
>> 
>
>I think the disconnect is between policy language and technical language.
>The protocol was developed to handle efficiently the different policy
>requirements.
>What I stated earlier is what would happen at the technical level to meet
>the policy.
>
>> 
>> Also we are not talking about 1 month and 6 month terms 
>> here... this is
>> highly irrevelant, as the time that it would/should take to 
>> implement this
>> the registry will be well under way and it will be all to late and to
>> little... not to say that it's a bad idea.. need to think 
>> about that one..
>> 
>
>It is a relatively simple change at the registry (the protocol was designed
>to allow flexibility here), and if Ian Johnston is right could be a
>relatively easy policy change (it seems that a maximum of 2 years was set
>by
>the policy panel, and that the minimum could be selected).  I would be
happy
>with moving to 1 year minimum as a first step (which is consistent with
>.com).
>
>Regards,
>Bruce Tonkin
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
>Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
>
>author, further information at the above URL.  (310 subscribers.)
>