RE: [registrars] unsanctioned whois concepts (long)

["Christopher Ambler" <chris@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

Christopher

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 6:08 PM
To: Christopher Ambler
Cc: 'Rick Wesson'; 'Tim Ruiz'; markjr@xxxxxxxxxxx; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [registrars] unsanctioned whois concepts (long)

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