ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


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

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

  • To: <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Paul Stahura'" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: [dow1tf] TR: IPC constituency statement for Whois TF1
  • From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:20:40 -0600
  • Cc: <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Importance: Normal
  • In-reply-to: <406A305D.7010507@tucows.com>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Paul,

I agree with Ross' comments below for the most part.

By severely restricted, I meant that it should only be used to facilitate
transfers, and only then until something better is decided on. I was not
arguing anything about the data collected or displayed.

But regarding that, I don't see a need for, or agree with, any change to the
data collected or displayed, at least based on any of the arguments or
reasoning that I've seen or heard to date.

Also, I am only talking about direct access to port 43. I see no problem
with, and am not recommending any change to, the Web based access to Whois
as long we can continue to protect it from scripting or high volume access.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 8:44 PM
To: Paul Stahura
Cc: Tim Ruiz; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: [dow1tf] TR: IPC constituency statement for
Whois TF1

On 3/30/2004 9:13 PM Paul Stahura noted that:

> What happens with thick registries?
> .com and .net will switch to EPP, and who knows, probably thick EPP.
> Do we get to choose "b allow registrars to manage the service as they see
> fit" by not providing them with the whois information?

I think this is almost a separate conversation, but my preference would 
be to evaluate the utility of the thick registry model before we permit 
the creation of any more. Based on the testbed experience, I'm not 
convinced that centralizing customer data in this way without getting 
the guarantees we all need from a legal perspective is necessarily a 
wise thing moving forward.

To the point as it relates to this policy - registrars shouldn't be 
obligated to provide the data to any party that can't guarantee that the 
data will be treated in a manner consistent with the policies and 
legislation under which it was collected.

> Are you proposing we be allowed to not give the info to anyone? 

That would be one potential implementation. Or just to parties that we 
have a relationship with. Or just to parties that acts a brokers between 
registrars and potential licensee's or...




-- 

                        -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 >>>