Quoting magic2147§optushome.com.au 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. kimReceived 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