<<<
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 21:08:25 -0500
- Cc: "'Rick Wesson'" <wessorh@xxxxxx>, "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, markjr@xxxxxxxxxxx, registrars@xxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <8C56D444E065C22-378-19AF@App1>
- Organization: Tucows Inc.
- References: <8C56D444E065C22-378-19AF@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 4:29 PM Christopher Ambler noted that:
Nothing prevents bad
actors from not participating in a whitelisting system like Tim and I are
proposing.
??
We might want to try and keep the discussion focused on the merits of
the proposal and leave the rhetoric out of it for now...
Unless we have a concrete understanding of the benefits of the proposal,
then I'm afraid then we're destined to become a bad actor - because
there's no way that we're going to implement something that we don't
understand.
Towards that goal, I'd like to hear some further clarification on what
this proposal gets us that we don't already have under current policy.
--
-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
>>>
|