Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?

Wed Apr 10 00:39:31 UTC 2013

I said all of this years ago as a suggestion for the next round of contract
renewals (since I was told that it had to be added to the contracts first).

Best of luck. Personally, I think it should have been a requirement at least
5 years ago.

Owen

On Apr 9, 2013, at 16:48 , Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner at nic-naa.net> wrote:

> On 4/9/13 4:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> It's about time certification was lost for failure to handle AAAA
>> records.  The same should also apply for DS records.
> 
> You can suggest this to the compliance team. It seems to me (registrar
> hat == "on") that in 2.5 years time, when Staff next conducts a
> registrar audit, that this is a reasonable expectation of an
> accreditation holding contracted party. It simply needs to be added to
> the base RAA agreement.
> 
> Joe _may_ be in a position to encourage the compliance team to develop
> a metric and a test mechanism, but at present, the compliance team
> appears to be capable of WHOIS:43 harvesting (via Kent's boxen) and
> occasional WHOIS:80 scraping, and little else beyond records
> reconciliation for a limited sample. NB, investing equal oversight
> labor in all current (and former) RAA holders is (a) a significant
> duplication of effort for little possible benefit where shell
> registrars are concerned, and (b) treats registrars (and their
> registrants' interests in fair dealing) with a few hundreds of domains
> and registrars (and their registrants' interests) with 10% or more of
> the total gTLD registry market indifferently by policy and enforcement
> tool design. The latter means most registrants (those with performance
> contracts from registrars with 10% market share) receive several
> orders of magnitude less contractual oversight protections than
> registrants using registrars with a few hundred "names under management".
> 
> IMHO, that's a problem that could be fixed.
> 
> Eric