Re: [registrars] FW: [dow1tf] TR: IPC constituency statement for Whois TF1

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/30/2004 5:49 PM Tim Ruiz noted that:

> Ross,
>
> To be clear, I think port 43 should only be used to facilitate transfers.
> Your option b) below would be a good second best as long as it included not
> having to support it at all (except for transfers).
>
> As far as bulk access, I feel the same way. That option should not exist at
> all, but something like b) might be an acceptable alternative.
It would have to include the option of dealing with it in any way each 
registrar sees fit - including not offering it.
Same goes for bulk access. In both cases, I think we end up with a 
situation where some registrars would choose to continue to offer it, 
some would offer the data via other mechanisms and others still would 
deal with it in ways that we haven't thought of. In all cases, I think 
it is critical to deal with the problem in a way that preserves these 
options.
Simply eliminating them favors one outcome over others and doesn't 
provide registrars with a proper opportunity to "compete" for the 
right answer.

--


                       -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