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

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

On 3/30/2004 3:50 PM Tim Ruiz noted that:

> Paul,
>
> As you know, Go Daddy believes that port 43 should be severely restricted,
> if not done away with all together. By severely restricted I do NOT mean
> some kind of tiered access. I mean most access to port 43 should be stopped
> entirely.
But what should the policy be:

a) remove port 43
b) allow registrars to manage the service as they see fit
c) do nothing.

My preference is b) within tightly controlled bounds. I kind of like 
having port 43 around for a lot of reasons and would prefer to be able 
to respond to the needs of the market within the confines of a policy 
rather than being forced into a position where a policy prevents an 
entire course of action (as with a)
A similar policy outcome for dealing with Bulk access to customer data 
makes similar sense.
The market will almost always be a better regulator.

--


                       -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