ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [registrars] unsanctioned whois concepts (long)

  • To: Christopher Ambler <chris@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [registrars] unsanctioned whois concepts (long)
  • From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:38:29 -0500
  • Cc: "'Rick Wesson'" <wessorh@xxxxxx>, "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, markjr@xxxxxxxxxxx, registrars@xxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <8C56D6EC98D9342-378-227F@App1>
  • Organization: Tucows Inc.
  • References: <8C56D6EC98D9342-378-227F@App1>
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6a) Gecko/20031029 Thunderbird/0.4a
On 10/30/2003 9:35 PM Christopher Ambler noted that:

I'm sorry, Ross, I shouldn't have made reference to it since I've not yet
"announced" what we're proposing. Cart before the horse and all.

I was trying to make a point in the abstract and using a bad example.

Let me rephrase - there's nothing preventing "bad actors" from not
participating in *any* cooperative effort of any kind between registrars. At
the end of the day, bad actors are going to be bad actors.

Much clearer - thanks. I'm still short on understanding wrt the specifics of the delta between present and desired state, but I guess it can wait until you actually make a proposal ;)

--

                       -rwr








                "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
                                           All life is an experiment.
                            The more experiments you make the better."
                        - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>