Discuss mailing list

[BIEN Laurent <l.bien AT epsmr.org>]

Bonjour docteur

C’est bien noté pour demain à midi

très bonne journée 

Laurent BIEN 

Directeur 

Centre hospitalier Gabriel Martin (CHGM)  &

Etablissement Public de Santé Mentale de la Réunion (EPSMR)

Le 6 nov. 2017 à 06:48, Verax <verax AT 8chan.co> a écrit :

1: No
2: No
3: Yes
4: No
5: No
6: No

1.  As much as I would like some voting rules, the second clause sets
too much of a precedent for setting central rules to override an
individual TLD's rules.  The third clause contains an exception to allow
TLDs to set their own rules for charter modification, but I don't like
that it is the exception rather than the rule.

2.  I would like to see you submit this as a separate proposal rather
than packing it in an omnibus.  I like the entire thing other than the
requirement to operate a T2 server for 3 months.  Please recall that you
started the .o domain without having operated a T2 first, and that none
of the .chan administrators have operated a T2 yet.  Although I agree
with having some barrier to entry to weed out spurious proposals, 3
months is far too long.  To use my case as an example, I have a T2, it's
just private because my DSL connection is too shitty to offer a good
service to users, and I've been too busy with other things in my life
(such as administrating a TLD) to get around to getting a VPS to run a
better nameserver.

4.  As much as I would enjoy abusing unlimited filibuster works, this
will lead to a flame war locking up a vote, as others have pointed out.

5. I would like to see T2 servers accepting notifies from the
authoritative servers get added here.
Also:

Failure to meet the following minimum requirements may result in the

appointment of a temporary maintainer for your DNS space, removal of
your Tier 1 server, or removal of your TLD from the OpenNIC namespace.
Is not ok.  No codifying of TLD seizure please.

6.  I agree with Fusl here.  We probably shouldn't tie our hands here
considering that we really have no idea what we'll try to peer with in
the future.

IMO, this should have been done as several separate items.  Batching it
up like this is just going to confuse discussion.

Also, sorry I didn't get around to participating in the discussion earlier.

--Verax

Jonah Aragon wrote:

Hello! 

This vote is on the changes proposed

at https://lists.opennicproject.org/sympa/arc/discuss/2017-10/msg00135.html.

The vote on adding these changes to the official OpenNIC policies will

end on November 14, 2017 at 6:00 PM UTC. 

*IMPORTANT, READ BEFORE VOTING: *This vote is split up into 6 sections,

which may be passed individually (they do not depend on each other). You

should vote YES or NO on /every section individually /in an ordered list

1 through 6. This is an effort to get the portions the community most

wants passed while keeping open the possibility of dropping certain

topics that may require more discussion. If your reply contains only a

single YES or NO, your vote will be counted as either YES or NO for all

6 sections proposed, respectively. Each of the six sections are labeled

as such in the original proposal. 

Here’s a brief summary of the proposal, for your convenience. You should

read the full proposal linked above prior to voting. 

- Very clear voting outcome requirements. Certain votes may now require

more than the simple majority of votes that were required for any

proposals in the past. 

- Clarified TLD proposal requirements. This should ensure an operator’s

setup is configured prior to a proposal, and outline what exactly is

necessary for any operator. 

- Voting and formal discussion threads posted to this list now have a

very clear format that MUST be followed. This will prevent confusion on

what the original poster is expecting from the community. 

- Formal discussions now have a strict minimum time requirement to be

active before a vote can be pushed to the list. Voting threads now have

very clear deadlines. 

- DNS operators now have certain minimum requirements to meet to keep

the ability to operate key infrastructure components. 

- FUTURE peered networks now have requirements to meet before we enter

an agreement with them. 

Jonah

--------

You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.

You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org

--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org