Hello all, I just received a heads-up from a friend telling me that Network Solutions is unable/unwilling to configure AAAA's for .com/.net domains. He works for a large media outlet who will be enabling IPv6 on their sites for World IPv6 Launch Day. I hope it's just a misunderstanding. If it's not, I would love to know if there is a reason for this, and if they have a timeline for supporting AAAA's. It's ok to contact me privately. regards Carlos
I just received a heads-up from a friend telling me that Network Solutions is unable/unwilling to configure AAAA's for .com/.net domains. He works for a large media outlet who will be enabling IPv6 on their sites for World IPv6 Launch Day.
I hope it's just a misunderstanding. If it's not, I would love to know if there is a reason for this, and if they have a timeline for supporting AAAA's.
I've had them set up in the past by e-mailing IPV6Req@networksolutions.com.
And they need to do anyway, if they want to keep the contract: http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroom&id=8494 Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: Jeff Fisher <nanog@techmonkeys.org> Responder a: <nanog@techmonkeys.org> Fecha: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:53:35 -0600 Para: <nanog@nanog.org> Asunto: Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?
I just received a heads-up from a friend telling me that Network Solutions is unable/unwilling to configure AAAA's for .com/.net domains. He works for a large media outlet who will be enabling IPv6 on their sites for World IPv6 Launch Day.
I hope it's just a misunderstanding. If it's not, I would love to know if there is a reason for this, and if they have a timeline for supporting AAAA's.
I've had them set up in the past by e-mailing IPV6Req@networksolutions.com.
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
On 3/28/2012 10:59 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
And they need to do anyway, if they want to keep the contract:
This really points out one of the biggest impediments to moving to IPv6. I just briefly looked at the list of registrars that are able to create glue records for any domain I might have that I wanted to exist in IPv6, and it's a very limited list. I'm currently using Pairnic, and I am happy with them, mostly, but moving to IPv6 is painful. To quote:
We don't have a customer interface for IPv6 glue records on name servers. However, we can manually set them up if you can send us the information for the records.
That's probably okay for me, but it's really not conducive to any large scale operation. It needs to be run-of-the-mill, and not esoteric, to move it forward. -- It isn't just me. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jw_on_tech/archive/2012/03/13/why-i-left-google.aspx
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning system, an AAAA record is just a fragging string, just like any other DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ? regards Carlos On 3/28/12 3:40 PM, Lynda wrote:
On 3/28/2012 10:59 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
And they need to do anyway, if they want to keep the contract:
This really points out one of the biggest impediments to moving to IPv6. I just briefly looked at the list of registrars that are able to create glue records for any domain I might have that I wanted to exist in IPv6, and it's a very limited list. I'm currently using Pairnic, and I am happy with them, mostly, but moving to IPv6 is painful.
To quote:
We don't have a customer interface for IPv6 glue records on name servers. However, we can manually set them up if you can send us the information for the records.
That's probably okay for me, but it's really not conducive to any large scale operation. It needs to be run-of-the-mill, and not esoteric, to move it forward.
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning system, an AAAA record is just a fragging string, just like any other DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ?
Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol did the cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential lost in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the expense. Simple business decision. Regards, -drc
I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a 20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and I think I'm exaggerating. If they don't want to offer support for it, they can just put up some disclaimer. regards, Carlos On 3/28/12 3:55 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning system, an AAAA record is just a fragging string, just like any other DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ?
Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol did the cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential lost in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the expense. Simple business decision.
Regards, -drc
On 3/28/2012 12:13 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a 20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and I think I'm exaggerating.
If they don't want to offer support for it, they can just put up some disclaimer.
regards,
Carlos
On 3/28/12 3:55 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning system, an AAAA record is just a fragging string, just like any other DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ?
Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol did the cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential lost in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the expense. Simple business decision.
Regards, -drc
That's assuming their system is sanely or logically designed. It could be a total disaster of code, which makes adding such a feature a major pain. --John
Another reason to not use them. Seriusly, if they cannot expend some thousands of dollars (because it shouldn't be more than that) in "touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc." I cannot take them as a serious provider for my names. Regards, .as On 28 Mar 2012, at 21:16, John T. Yocum wrote:
On 3/28/2012 12:13 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a 20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and I think I'm exaggerating.
If they don't want to offer support for it, they can just put up some disclaimer.
regards,
Carlos
On 3/28/12 3:55 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning system, an AAAA record is just a fragging string, just like any other DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ?
Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol did the cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential lost in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the expense. Simple business decision.
Regards, -drc
That's assuming their system is sanely or logically designed. It could be a total disaster of code, which makes adding such a feature a major pain.
--John
I agree, but in a big company it generally would cost at least 10s of thousands of dollars just for training alone. The time away from the phones that would have to be covered would exceed that. Let's say you had 8000 phone staff and they were getting $10/be and training took an hour. That is 80k coverage expenses alone. For a large company I would expect a project budget of at least 250k minimal. And probably more if the company exceeds 50,000 employees. Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com> wrote: Another reason to not use them. Seriusly, if they cannot expend some thousands of dollars (because it shouldn't be more than that) in "touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc." I cannot take them as a serious provider for my names. Regards, .as On 28 Mar 2012, at 21:16, John T. Yocum wrote:
On 3/28/2012 12:13 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a 20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and I think I'm exaggerating.
If they don't want to offer support for it, they can just put up some disclaimer.
regards,
Carlos
On 3/28/12 3:55 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning system, an AAAA record is just a fragging string, just like any other DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ?
Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol did the cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential lost in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the expense. Simple business decision.
Regards, -drc
That's assuming their system is sanely or logically designed. It could be a total disaster of code, which makes adding such a feature a major pain.
--John
I am not taking about a big imaginary company. I am taking about NSI and this specific case. Regards, as On 29 Mar 2012, at 00:55, Joseph Snyder wrote:
I agree, but in a big company it generally would cost at least 10s of thousands of dollars just for training alone. The time away from the phones that would have to be covered would exceed that. Let's say you had 8000 phone staff and they were getting $10/be and training took an hour. That is 80k coverage expenses alone. For a large company I would expect a project budget of at least 250k minimal. And probably more if the company exceeds 50,000 employees.
Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com> wrote:
Another reason to not use them.
Seriusly, if they cannot expend some thousands of dollars (because it shouldn't be more than that) in "touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc." I cannot take them as a serious provider for my names.
Regards, .as
On 28 Mar 2012, at 21:16, John T. Yocum wrote:
On 3/28/2012 12:13 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a 20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and I think I'm exaggerating.
If they don't want to offer support for it, they can just
put up some
disclaimer.
regards,
Carlos
On 3/28/12 3:55 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning system, an AAAA record is just a fragging string, just like any other DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ?
Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol did the cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential lost in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the expense. Simple business decision.
Regards, -drc
That's assuming their system is sanely or logically designed. It could be a total disaster of code, which makes adding such a feature a major pain.
--John
Doesn't netsol charge something crazy like $50/year per for domain services? If that is still the case sounds like ipv6 support for 250k is a drop in the bucket :-). Not sure why any clueful DNS admin would still use netsol though. On Mar 28, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Joseph Snyder <joseph.snyder@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree, but in a big company it generally would cost at least 10s of thousands of dollars just for training alone. The time away from the phones that would have to be covered would exceed that. Let's say you had 8000 phone staff and they were getting $10/be and training took an hour. That is 80k coverage expenses alone. For a large company I would expect a project budget of at least 250k minimal. And probably more if the company exceeds 50,000 employees.
Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com> wrote:
Another reason to not use them.
Seriusly, if they cannot expend some thousands of dollars (because it shouldn't be more than that) in "touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc." I cannot take them as a serious provider for my names..
Regards, .as
On 28 Mar 2012, at 21:16, John T. Yocum wrote:
On 3/28/2012 12:13 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a 20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and I think I'm exaggerating.
If they don't want to offer support for it, they can just put up some disclaimer.
regards,
Carlos
On 3/28/12 3:55 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning system, an AAAA record is just a fragging string, just like any other DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ?
Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol did the cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential lost in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the expense. Simple business decision.
Regards, -drc
That's assuming their system is sanely or logically designed. It could be a total disaster of code, which makes adding such a feature a major pain.
--John
I agree, but in a big company it generally would cost at least 10s of
No, not $50, NetSol charges me in the range of $9.75 to $9.99 per year per domain name. Not defending NetSol, just clarity for the purposes of the archives. Who knows, maybe I get those rates because I mention their competitor GoDaddy :-) Tony Patti CIO S. Walter Packaging Corp. -----Original Message----- From: Mike Gallagher [mailto:mike@txih.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:19 PM To: Joseph Snyder Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Arturo Servin Subject: Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ? Doesn't netsol charge something crazy like $50/year per for domain services? If that is still the case sounds like ipv6 support for 250k is a drop in the bucket :-). Not sure why any clueful DNS admin would still use netsol though. On Mar 28, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Joseph Snyder <joseph.snyder@gmail.com> wrote: thousands of dollars just for training alone. The time away from the phones that would have to be covered would exceed that. Let's say you had 8000 phone staff and they were getting $10/be and training took an hour. That is 80k coverage expenses alone. For a large company I would expect a project budget of at least 250k minimal. And probably more if the company exceeds 50,000 employees.
Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com> wrote:
Another reason to not use them.
Seriusly, if they cannot expend some thousands of dollars (because it
shouldn't be more than that) in "touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc." I cannot take them as a serious provider for my names..
Regards, .as
On 28 Mar 2012, at 21:16, John T. Yocum wrote:
On 3/28/2012 12:13 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a 20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and I think I'm exaggerating.
If they don't want to offer support for it, they can just put up some disclaimer.
regards,
Carlos
On 3/28/12 3:55 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning system, an AAAA record is just a fragging string, just like any other DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ?
Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code,
(hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol did the cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential lost in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the expense. Simple business decision.
Regards, -drc
That's assuming their system is sanely or logically designed. It could be a total disaster of code, which makes adding such a feature a major pain.
--John
Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where that is not practical? On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Tony Patti <tony@swalter.com> wrote:
No, not $50, NetSol charges me in the range of $9.75 to $9.99 per year per domain name.
Not defending NetSol, just clarity for the purposes of the archives.
Who knows, maybe I get those rates because I mention their competitor GoDaddy :-)
Tony Patti CIO S. Walter Packaging Corp.
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Gallagher [mailto:mike@txih.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:19 PM To: Joseph Snyder Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Arturo Servin Subject: Re: Quad-A records in Network Solutions ?
Doesn't netsol charge something crazy like $50/year per for domain services? If that is still the case sounds like ipv6 support for 250k is a drop in the bucket :-). Not sure why any clueful DNS admin would still use netsol though.
On Mar 28, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Joseph Snyder <joseph.snyder@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree, but in a big company it generally would cost at least 10s of thousands of dollars just for training alone. The time away from the phones that would have to be covered would exceed that. Let's say you had 8000 phone staff and they were getting $10/be and training took an hour. That is 80k coverage expenses alone. For a large company I would expect a project budget of at least 250k minimal. And probably more if the company exceeds 50,000 employees.
Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com> wrote:
Another reason to not use them.
Seriusly, if they cannot expend some thousands of dollars (because it shouldn't be more than that) in "touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc." I cannot take them as a serious provider for my names..
Regards, .as
On 28 Mar 2012, at 21:16, John T. Yocum wrote:
On 3/28/2012 12:13 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a 20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and I think I'm exaggerating.
If they don't want to offer support for it, they can just put up some disclaimer.
regards,
Carlos
On 3/28/12 3:55 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning system, an AAAA record is just a fragging string, just like any other DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ?
Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code,
(hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol did the cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential lost in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the expense. Simple business decision.
Regards, -drc
That's assuming their system is sanely or logically designed. It could be a total disaster of code, which makes adding such a feature a major pain.
--John
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM, james jones <james@freedomnet.co.nz> wrote:
Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where that is not practical?
If your goal is AAAA, i assume you care about native IPv6 as mandatory feature. And, if you care about native IPv6 as a mandatory, EC2 is not your best better. They have competition that work very well in this realm of providing native IPv6. CB
On 2012-03-29 18:21 , james jones wrote:
Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where that is not practical?
They tend to not do IPv6, let alone native IPv6, they also tend to be behind a IPv4 NAT (which is why lots of folks use AYIYA tunnels to give them IPv6 connectivity) and more importantly on this subject, you still need a registrar to actually link the domain name from the tld to your server and for that purpose you need glue AAAA records and not many support those, but it is getting better. Greets, Jeroen
Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where that is not practical?
Aren't we talking about NetSol as a *registrar* and inserting quad-A glue? Or did I miss the original intention? Regards, Tim.
Apparently they support quad-A glues if you phone them and ask for them. Personally, I run my own DNS servers, but sometimes it's not an option. My friend, who originally had this issue, is in a different business line, he is not proficient in DNS server operation, and thus he's comfortable hosting his DNS somewhere. He spent one hour on the phone this morning with Netsol to see if he could create a subdomain pointing to a DNS server I operate. It was also a no-go, he got fed up with them and is changing registrars. Thanks for all the input. regards Carlos On 3/29/12 1:47 PM, Tim Franklin wrote:
Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where that is not practical? Aren't we talking about NetSol as a *registrar* and inserting quad-A glue? Or did I miss the original intention?
Regards, Tim.
On Mar 28, 2012 2:25 PM, "Arturo Servin" <arturo.servin<arturo.servin@gmail.com> @ <arturo.servin@gmail.com>gmail.com <arturo.servin@gmail.com>> wrote:
Another reason to not use them.
Seriusly, if they cannot expend some thousands of dollars (because
it shouldn't be more than that) in "touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc." I cannot take them as a serious provider for my names.
Not having ipv6 and your website availability tied to some overloaded cgn at an ISP you have no relationship with .... or your abuse policy just blocked what you thought was a /24 ... turns out to be verizon nat44 space for nyc ... and now x million customers can't click "buy now" .... priceless. CB
Regards, .as
On 28 Mar 2012, at 21:16, John T. Yocum wrote:
On 3/28/2012 12:13 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a 20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and I think I'm exaggerating.
If they don't want to offer support for it, they can just put up some disclaimer.
regards,
Carlos
On 3/28/12 3:55 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning system, an AAAA record is just a fragging string, just like any other DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ?
Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code,
(hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol did the cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential lost in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the expense. Simple business decision.
Regards, -drc
That's assuming their system is sanely or logically designed. It could be a total disaster of code, which makes adding such a feature a major pain.
--John
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 04:13:53PM -0300, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a 20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and I think I'm exaggerating.
If they don't want to offer support for it, they can just put up some disclaimer.
regards,
Carlos
On 3/28/12 3:55 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning system, an AAAA record is just a fragging string, just like any other DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ?
Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol did the cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential lost in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the expense. Simple business decision.
Regards, -drc
On Mar 28, 2012, at 3:13 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo <carlosm3011@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not convinced. What you mention is real, but the code they need is little more than a regular expression that can be found on Google and a 20-line script for testing lames. And a couple of weeks of testing, and I think I'm exaggerating.
If they don't want to offer support for it, they can just put up some disclaimer.
regards,
Carlos
I absolutely agree with Carlos here this has got to be a joke or likelihood of NETSOL being extremely lazy on their part possibly lack of demand? There is absolutely no valid reason an update like this shouldn't be trivial to implement unless their system was built by IBM contractors :-) The core functionality of any IP/DNS management system is the flexibility and robustness to quickly add and remove address records. No matter how bad the system was designed or implemented not being able to support new record types is a complete FAIL on all counts especially from a veteran registrar like NETSOL. Like others have stated stick it where it hurts the most and use another vendor.
On 3/28/12 3:55 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning system, an AAAA record is just a fragging string, just like any other DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ?
Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol did the cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential lost in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the expense. Simple business decision.
Regards, -drc
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:55:35AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning system, an AAAA record is just a fragging string, just like any other DNS record. How difficult to support can it be ?
Of course it is more than a string. It requires touching code, (hopefully) testing that code, deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating documentation, etc. Presumably Netsol did the cost/benefit analysis and decided the potential increase in revenue generated by the vast hordes of people demanding IPv6 (or the potential lost in revenue as the vast hordes transfer away) didn't justify the expense. Simple business decision.
Regards, -drc
once, years ago, Netsol -did- have a path for injecting AAAA records. It was prototype code with the engineering team. I had records registered with them. Have since sold the domains and they moved to other registries. But they did support it for a while. /bill
Once upon a time, Lynda <shrdlu@deaddrop.org> said:
This really points out one of the biggest impediments to moving to IPv6. I just briefly looked at the list of registrars that are able to create glue records for any domain I might have that I wanted to exist in IPv6, and it's a very limited list. I'm currently using Pairnic, and I am happy with them, mostly, but moving to IPv6 is painful.
The same problem exists for DNSSEC; the number of registrars that support both IPv6 glue and DNSSEC in their standard interfaces is unfortunately small. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
On 3/28/2012 11:51 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Lynda<shrdlu@deaddrop.org> said:
This really points out one of the biggest impediments to moving to IPv6. I just briefly looked at the list of registrars that are able to create glue records for any domain I might have that I wanted to exist in IPv6, and it's a very limited list. I'm currently using Pairnic, and I am happy with them, mostly, but moving to IPv6 is painful.
The same problem exists for DNSSEC; the number of registrars that support both IPv6 glue and DNSSEC in their standard interfaces is unfortunately small.
True story, although Pairnic makes that one easy. I just wish they'd put up an automated interface for IPv6, but I'm happy they support it, at least. My favorite place to look for support for both is here: http://www.sixxs.net/faq/dns/?faq=ipv6glue No surprise to either of us that the column for DNSSEC is filled with yellow. :-( -- It isn't just me. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jw_on_tech/archive/2012/03/13/why-i-left-google.aspx
In a message written on Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 01:51:19PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
The same problem exists for DNSSEC; the number of registrars that support both IPv6 glue and DNSSEC in their standard interfaces is unfortunately small.
joker.com supports both, and has a very nice web interface to do all the work. If your current provider doesn't support both you need to vote with your dollars. There are a dozen or more choices with good IPv6 and DNSSEC support. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Hi Carlos, You are right... I just entered with my account and after I clicked "Edit DNS" there is a dialog box which says: "Advanced Users: To specify your IPv6 name server address (IPv6 glue record), e-mail us the domain name, the host name of the name server(s), and their IPv6 address(es)." See you, Alejandro, On 3/28/12, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo <carlosm3011@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I just received a heads-up from a friend telling me that Network Solutions is unable/unwilling to configure AAAA's for .com/.net domains. He works for a large media outlet who will be enabling IPv6 on their sites for World IPv6 Launch Day.
I hope it's just a misunderstanding. If it's not, I would love to know if there is a reason for this, and if they have a timeline for supporting AAAA's.
It's ok to contact me privately.
regards
Carlos
Yup... I was reading the same page myself. Pretty sad. My friend just forwarded me the response from NSI Support. Incredibly lame. I'm tempted to share it here, but my good twin told me not to. I'm recommending they switch registrars. regards, Carlos On 3/28/12 2:57 PM, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
Hi Carlos, You are right... I just entered with my account and after I clicked "Edit DNS" there is a dialog box which says:
"Advanced Users:
To specify your IPv6 name server address (IPv6 glue record), e-mail us the domain name, the host name of the name server(s), and their IPv6 address(es)."
See you,
Alejandro,
On 3/28/12, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo <carlosm3011@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I just received a heads-up from a friend telling me that Network Solutions is unable/unwilling to configure AAAA's for .com/.net domains. He works for a large media outlet who will be enabling IPv6 on their sites for World IPv6 Launch Day.
I hope it's just a misunderstanding. If it's not, I would love to know if there is a reason for this, and if they have a timeline for supporting AAAA's.
It's ok to contact me privately.
regards
Carlos
Hi Carlos, list, Today I entered to networksolutions.com and I remembered this thread. I had to administer a domain name and I sadly found they have done nothing in IPv6 during the last 12 month. Regards, ^Ao$ On 3/28/12, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo <carlosm3011@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I just received a heads-up from a friend telling me that Network Solutions is unable/unwilling to configure AAAA's for .com/.net domains. He works for a large media outlet who will be enabling IPv6 on their sites for World IPv6 Launch Day.
I hope it's just a misunderstanding. If it's not, I would love to know if there is a reason for this, and if they have a timeline for supporting AAAA's.
It's ok to contact me privately.
regards
Carlos
Hi, At least I know the infrastructure is not ready to accept IPv6 for NS registration. I tried with NetSol and GoD. Which remind me... I'm still waiting on my NSx.BCP38.ORG from GoD? Grr... (hate when someone is right) ----- Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443 On 04/09/13 14:42, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
Hi Carlos, list, Today I entered to networksolutions.com and I remembered this thread. I had to administer a domain name and I sadly found they have done nothing in IPv6 during the last 12 month.
Regards,
^Ao$
On 3/28/12, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo <carlosm3011@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I just received a heads-up from a friend telling me that Network Solutions is unable/unwilling to configure AAAA's for .com/.net domains. He works for a large media outlet who will be enabling IPv6 on their sites for World IPv6 Launch Day.
I hope it's just a misunderstanding. If it's not, I would love to know if there is a reason for this, and if they have a timeline for supporting AAAA's.
It's ok to contact me privately.
regards
Carlos
You have a choice of registrars. If you don't like the one you are using right now, choose a different one. There are lots to choose from. http://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accredited-list.html Joe Sent from my Ono-Sendai Cyberspace 7 On 2013-04-10, at 2:42, Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Carlos, list, Today I entered to networksolutions.com and I remembered this thread. I had to administer a domain name and I sadly found they have done nothing in IPv6 during the last 12 month.
Regards,
^Ao$
On 3/28/12, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo <carlosm3011@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I just received a heads-up from a friend telling me that Network Solutions is unable/unwilling to configure AAAA's for .com/.net domains. He works for a large media outlet who will be enabling IPv6 on their sites for World IPv6 Launch Day.
I hope it's just a misunderstanding. If it's not, I would love to know if there is a reason for this, and if they have a timeline for supporting AAAA's.
It's ok to contact me privately.
regards
Carlos
Not accepting AAAA is just about as bad as not accepting A records. You wouldn't certify a registrar if they couldn't update A records. It's about time certification was lost for failure to handle AAAA records. The same should also apply for DS records. In message <6D7961E1-F0FE-4674-8F8E-49CB5226DC35@hopcount.ca>, Joe Abley writes :
You have a choice of registrars. If you don't like the one you are using rig= ht now, choose a different one. There are lots to choose from.
http://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accredited-list.html
Joe
Sent from my Ono-Sendai Cyberspace 7
On 2013-04-10, at 2:42, Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com> wr= ote:
Hi Carlos, list, Today I entered to networksolutions.com and I remembered this thread. I had to administer a domain name and I sadly found they have done nothing in IPv6 during the last 12 month. =20 Regards, =20 ^Ao$ =20 On 3/28/12, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo <carlosm3011@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all, =20 I just received a heads-up from a friend telling me that Network Solutions is unable/unwilling to configure AAAA's for .com/.net domains. He works for a large media outlet who will be enabling IPv6 on their sites for World IPv6 Launch Day. =20 I hope it's just a misunderstanding. If it's not, I would love to know if there is a reason for this, and if they have a timeline for supporting AAAA's. =20 It's ok to contact me privately. =20 regards =20 Carlos =20 -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
Yo Mark! On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:23:34 +1000 Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
Not accepting AAAA is just about as bad as not accepting A records. You wouldn't certify a registrar if they couldn't update A records. It's about time certification was lost for failure to handle AAAA records. The same should also apply for DS records.
+1 RGDS GARY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97701 gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588
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
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@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
On 4/9/13 5:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
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.
And exactly where were you in ICANN process and politics in 2008?
Can you point is at the right address or form to submit regarding this? Seems like its time for both on AAAA and DS. Jared Mauch On Apr 9, 2013, at 7:48 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@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.
On 4/9/13 5:47 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
Can you point is at the right address or form to submit regarding this? Seems like its time for both on AAAA and DS.
Jared, Joe is an employee of the corporation, a rather high ranking one. As I mentioned in my response to Mark, he _may_ be in a position to encourage both legal to develop new language for future addition to the RAA, and the Registrar Liaison to socialize the issue to those RAA parties who are members of the Registrar Stakeholder Group within the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO, and the Compliance team. As a matter of policy development you should expect that Registrars (recall hat) have been presented with ... proposed new terms and conditions that ... are not universally appreciated, and so one must either (a) impose new conditions unilaterally upon counter-parties, arguing some theory of necessity, or (b) negotiate a mutually agreeable modification. There is a lot of heat lost in the ICANN system, so to re-purpose the off-hand observation of John Curran made recently, operators having some rough consensus on desirable features of RRSet editors may be a necessary predicate to policy intervention. As I observed to John, the ISP Constituency within the ICANN GNSO has been an effective advocate of trademark policy, and no other policy area, since the Montevideo General meeting, in 2001. Eric P.S. I may be turning in my Registrar hat in the near future.
Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: [...]
Joe is an employee of the corporation, a rather high ranking one. As I mentioned in my response to Mark, he _may_ be in a position to encourage both legal to develop new language for future addition to the RAA, and the Registrar Liaison to socialize the issue to those RAA parties who are members of the Registrar Stakeholder Group within the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO, and the Compliance team.
As a matter of policy development you should expect that Registrars (recall hat) have been presented with ... proposed new terms and conditions that ... are not universally appreciated, and so one must either (a) impose new conditions unilaterally upon counter-parties, arguing some theory of necessity, or (b) negotiate a mutually agreeable modification.
IPv6 was on the table from the start of the RAA negotiations, as I understand it. When I scanned the draft RAA posted a few weeks back I noticed language like: "3.3.1 At its expense, Registrar shall provide an interactive web page and a port 43 Whois service (each accessible via both IPv4 and IPv6) [...]" and "2. IPv6 - To the extent that Registrar offers registrants the ability to register nameserver addresses, Registrar must allow both IPv4 addresses and IPv6 addresses to be specified." There are multiple documents to read and you can find them all here. https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-07mar13-en.htm If anyone has specific questions about the draft RAA, they should contact Samantha Eisner, whose contact details are on that page. Regards, Leo
In message <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B15FF1684ABF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.o rg>, Leo Vegoda writes:
Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
[...]
Joe is an employee of the corporation, a rather high ranking one. As I mentioned in my response to Mark, he _may_ be in a position to encourage both legal to develop new language for future addition to the RAA, and the Registrar Liaison to socialize the issue to those RAA parties who are members of the Registrar Stakeholder Group within the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO, and the Compliance team.
As a matter of policy development you should expect that Registrars (recall hat) have been presented with ... proposed new terms and conditions that ... are not universally appreciated, and so one must either (a) impose new conditions unilaterally upon counter-parties, arguing some theory of necessity, or (b) negotiate a mutually agreeable modification.
IPv6 was on the table from the start of the RAA negotiations, as I understand it. When I scanned the draft RAA posted a few weeks back I noticed language like:
"3.3.1 At its expense, Registrar shall provide an interactive web page and a port 43 Whois service (each accessible via both IPv4 and IPv6) [...]"
and
"2. IPv6 - To the extent that Registrar offers registrants the ability to register nameserver addresses, Registrar must allow both IPv4 addresses and IPv6 addresses to be specified."
There are multiple documents to read and you can find them all here.
https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-07mar13-en.htm
If anyone has specific questions about the draft RAA, they should contact Samantha Eisner, whose contact details are on that page.
Regards,
Leo
Looking at https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-additional-operat... there is nothing which requires registrars to support AAAA on the web pages when A records are supported on web pages. AAAA and DS updates currently often required registrants to jump through all sorts of hoops compared to adding A and NS records. Maintenance of A, AAAA, NS and DS records are core functionality and need to be treated as such. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On Apr 9, 2013, at 8:56 pm, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote: […]
There are multiple documents to read and you can find them all here.
https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-07mar13-en.htm
If anyone has specific questions about the draft RAA, they should contact Samantha Eisner, whose contact details are on that page.
Regards,
Leo
Looking at https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/proposed-additional-operat... there is nothing which requires registrars to support AAAA on the web pages when A records are supported on web pages.
AAAA and DS updates currently often required registrants to jump through all sorts of hoops compared to adding A and NS records.
Maintenance of A, AAAA, NS and DS records are core functionality and need to be treated as such.
That is exactly the kind of input that is valuable to the consultation. I encourage you to submit it there so it is considered. Regards, Leo
I wrote:
There are multiple documents to read and you can find them all here.
https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-07mar13-en.htm An update has just been published. There's an announcement here: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-22apr13-en.htm Regards, Leo
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 08:13:49PM -0700, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
On 4/9/13 5:47 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
Can you point is at the right address or form to submit regarding this? Seems like its time for both on AAAA and DS.
Jared,
Joe is an employee of the corporation, a rather high ranking one. As I mentioned in my response to Mark, he _may_ be in a position to encourage both legal to develop new language for future addition to the RAA, and the Registrar Liaison to socialize the issue to those RAA parties who are members of the Registrar Stakeholder Group within the Contracted Parties House of the GNSO, and the Compliance team.
As a matter of policy development you should expect that Registrars (recall hat) have been presented with ... proposed new terms and conditions that ... are not universally appreciated, and so one must either (a) impose new conditions unilaterally upon counter-parties, arguing some theory of necessity, or (b) negotiate a mutually agreeable modification.
There is a lot of heat lost in the ICANN system, so to re-purpose the off-hand observation of John Curran made recently, operators having some rough consensus on desirable features of RRSet editors may be a necessary predicate to policy intervention. As I observed to John, the ISP Constituency within the ICANN GNSO has been an effective advocate of trademark policy, and no other policy area, since the Montevideo General meeting, in 2001.
Eric
P.S. I may be turning in my Registrar hat in the near future.
From the Beijing mtg of ICANN - There is a real concern about the disparity of requirement; the pre 2009 contracts, the 2009 contracts, the proposed 2013 contracts. unfortunately the 2013 contract language is pretty much baked and the only wiggle room is bringing the old contracts into compliance with the 2013 text. The trigger for the change now is the introduction of new TLDs. the one other avenue is to take this ti the ATRT2 folks and get this included as a matter of ICANN perfomance. OR - just move to a registrar who gives you what you want and not empower ICANN with the ability to set/control operational choice. YMMV of course. /bill
In time of response order: There is Leo's reference to the not yet concluded RAA process, in which a para contains possibly relevant "registrar shall" terms. This is forward looking (the proposed RAA is not yet required by the Corporation) and may apply only to parties contracting with the Corporation for the right to provide "registrar services" to some, not all, registries, operated under some contract with the Corporation. It may, if read creatively, solve the problem for a "new registrar" offering registration services for one or more "new gTLD(s)", but that may be the extent of its applicability. If the creative reading fails, AAAA and DS may fall outside of these "registrar shall" terms. Next, there is Mark's observation, citing the same proposed RAA, that if the registrar provides a web interface (note well the "if"), and this web interface provides a means to edit A and NS records, there is no additional functional requirement for AAAA and/or DS. Mark observes that AAAA and DS updates require more from the registrant (also the registrar, when software, testing, staff (technical, support desk, and legal) training are not abstracted by a magic wand), and then observes that:
Maintenance of A, AAAA, NS and DS records are core functionality and need to be treated as such.
Here I personally differ. For those not paying attention to my slightest utterance over the past 15 years of NEWDOM policy and technology... I am sure that v6 matters to some, but not all, at least not in the manditory-to-implement-yesterday sense advocated by the v6 evangelicals (who have captured the Corporation on this issue). I'm also sure that DNSSEC matters to some, but not all, at least not in the manditory-to-implement-yesterday sense advocated by the DNSSEC evangelicals (who have captured the Corporation on this issue). Some 80% of the available-by-contract names in the namespace published by the US DoC through its contractors, Verisign and the Corporation lie in one zone, which became signed as recently as March 31, 2011 (see Matt Larson's note to the DNSSEC deployment list). Of those a very small minority are signed. v6 availability statistics for North America, where over half of the registrars possessing the accreditation of the Corporation to offer registration services for this namespace are domiciled, and by inference, a substantial fraction of the registrant domains are hosted, are similarly a very small minority. It seems to me, and I don't suggest that anyone else hold this view, least of all the v6/DNSSEC evangelicals, that it is possible for one or more registrants to exist who desire neither to sign their domains, nor to ensure their availability via v6. This registrant, or these registrants, would be well served by a registrar which did not offer AAAA and/or DS record editing services. It also seems to me, and again, I don't suggest that anyone else hold this view, that the number of such registrants could be sufficient to support a cost recovery operator of a namespace which is not signed, and for which no AAAA record, in the namespace published by the US Doc (through its contractors, blah blah) exists. Obviously, the converse view carried the day, though not (yet) for namespaces not operated under contract with the Corporation. Leo's follow-up on input valuable to the consultation would, I think, have scope limited only to "new registrars" offering registry services to "new registries". See the "very small minority" observations, supra. Finally, Bill points out that there are several contracts still applicable, and the rather turgid nature of the policy and implementation dialog(s) of the opposing parties around the proposed 2013 contracts. There are registrars operating under the pre-2009 and the 2009 contracts looking at forming distinct legal entities to enter into the eventual post-2012 contract, a reasonable scenario is trademark exploitation and exit, iterated across a series of unlikely to be sustainable product launches, and there are registrars that simply won't bother with future "landrush" sales any more than they bother with current "expiry" sales. The point being the "trigger" Bill mentioned isn't universal, it really is limited to those who's registrar business interest in the Corporation is brand extension, or are applicants for vertically integrated registries. Bill observes that the ATRT2 is a possible venue. This may be, but on the whole, the interest of the United States Government in the capture of its delegated rule maker by the regulated businesses is limited. There was one mention "... a group of participants that engage in [Corporation]'s processes to a greater extent than ..." in the AoC of September 2009. Subsequent public communications of the Government concerning Notice and Comment obligations, usually referred to as "accountability and transparency" by the Corporation, are not evident to me. Bill closes with an obvious recommendation -- pick a registrar that works for your definition of "work". Of course this is the only useful act in the continuous present, as the Corporation adopted ab initio, and retains, a de minimus and reactive approach to contracted party oversight (see Sightfinder, tasting, ...) and "caveat emptor" (aka "registrant choice") exercised through initial selection, and transfer (when possible), are the means for "regulation through the market" of the registrar function. Basically, its "good luck with that" for any notion of MAY or MUST language on functionality, sort of like the fate of BCP38 and similar. My mileage is zero. Eric
participants (29)
-
Alain Hebert -
Alejandro Acosta -
Arturo Servin -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Brett Frankenberger -
Cameron Byrne -
Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo -
Chris Adams -
David Conrad -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Gary E. Miller -
james jones -
Jared Mauch -
Jeff Fisher -
Jeroen Massar -
Joe Abley -
John T. Yocum -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Joseph Snyder -
Leo Bicknell -
Leo Vegoda -
Lynda -
Mark Andrews -
Mike Gallagher -
Owen DeLong -
Rodrick Brown -
Tim Franklin -
Tony Patti