[dns-operations] Typo in fox.com and an Akamai squatter

[Robert Edmonds]

Mark Andrews wrote:
> Where is the permission to waive this section if RFC 1034 granted
> to ICANN?

This is a strange question.  ICANN's "Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU)/Joint Project Agreement (JPA)" with the U.S. Department of
Commerce doesn't appear to mention any individual RFCs at all.  The
closest thing I can find dealing with ICANN's authority over technical
requirements is the following, from the second amendment to that
document:

     ICANN agrees to perform the following activities and provide the
     following resources in support of the DNS Project and further
     agrees to undertake the following activities pursuant to its
     procedures as set forth in Attachment B (Articles of Incorporation)
     and Attachment C (By-Laws), as they may be revised from time to
     time in conformity with the DNS Project:

        [...]

        7. ICANN will continue the process of implementing new TLDs
        including proceeding with a proof of concept or testbed period
        and continuing design, development, and testing to determine
        future policy and action, continuing to consider:

            [...]

            b. The creation and implementation of minimum criteria for
            new and existing TLD registries.

            [...]

        [...]

    (https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/amend2-jpamou-2000-09-07-en)
    (https://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/2000/icann-ammendment-2)

Note that I didn't say that any particular section of 1034 is waived in
ICANN's "Functional and Performance Specifications".  I only observe
that a recommendation like "The administrators of both zones should
insure that the NS and glue RRs which mark both sides of the cut are
consistent and remain so" appearing in a section called "Administrative
considerations" probably cannot be elevated into the kind of RFC
conformance violation that would trigger contractual non-compliance.

> RFC 1034 was binding on registries well before ICANN took over this
> role and the communities expectation was that all of RFC 1034 would
> apply.  This sounds like ICANN botched the registry agreement.

Can you explain how any RFCs were made binding on registries in the
pre-ICANN period (especially for TLDs like .com that pre-date 1034)?
Everything I've read about this period indicates that there were few
formal agreements, especially with ccTLD registries.

The only thing related to this topic that I've been able to find is this
rather unspecific text in RFC 1591:

    In cases when there are persistent problems with the proper
    operation of a domain, the delegation may be revoked, and possibly
    delegated to another designated manager.

(Though, I don't think ignoring a "should", when DNS resolution
otherwise works fine, amounts to a "persistent problem" requiring the
penalty of undelegation.)

-- 
Robert Edmonds