Personally speaking, I'd support some sort of reminder though not a public naming and shaming. However this opens up a couple of other issues. What happens when there's no response to the email nagging (or whatever)? This is often how lame delegation reports get treated.
The "hall of shame" wasn't serious, I guess. While similar methods exist (although not with that tone), it's not going to be helpful. In most cases it's the software that's broken/outdated/in violation of what we now see as the protocol. So, the operator would have to upgrade or, in extreme cases, change the software. Some of them may not even think of IPv6, still they're affected when their servers e.g. respond NXDOMAIN where they shouldn't. A more detailed picture would be helpful, including kind of fingerprinting of the affected systems, so the vendors could be approached directly. After that (or in parallel) the operators could be informed using the normal paths (SOA-RNAME, tech-c, ...) and asked for cooperation. This would need a group of volunteers (well, nowadays "to volunteer" is a transitive verb, you see) and a fixed timeframe (e.g. after RIPE 49 until end 2004). The wg could back this by, amongst other things, documenting the project as an official wg effort, just in case someone wonders why they're approached and asked to disclose what kind of SW they run. In addition, the DNS registries might want to support this to encourage IPv6 deployment and to ease migration. First, of course, the wg needs to decide whether the problem size justifies the effort. -Peter