RE: [registrars] unsanctioned whois concepts (long)

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rick,

Not sure I agree entirely with Mark's ideas either. But in regards to
transfers, it is only a problem as long we continue to assume that the
only way for transfers to work is to have them start with the gaining
registrar. There is a better solution to transfers that would not rely
on whois at all and would drastically reduce the potential for disputes
and fraud. Have them start with the losing registrar who provides a key
to the registrant and the registry upon request (the losing registrar
has most accurate info to determine if it is a legitimate request) and
the registrant can take that key to the registrar of their choice and
complete a transfer in seconds.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick Wesson
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:23 AM
To: Mark Jeftovic
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [registrars] unsanctioned whois concepts (long)

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:59:41 -0500 (EST)
Mark Jeftovic <markjr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


> My ideas essentially break down to:
> 
> - De-centralize the location of the records.

significantly increases complexity of transfers. not every domain rusn a
web site and your proposal would require every domain to have an A
record and answer on port 80 to specific http requests.

I would ( and i expect many others in the IETF ) would not recomend
such.

> - Revising the Data Elements attached to those record

things like "proposed use" lead to enforcement; we don't want to
encourage any type of content enforcement.

do you have an ideas on inter-registrar data transfer as transfers
require?

-rick