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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ross,

To be clear, I think port 43 should only be used to facilitate transfers.
Your option b) below would be a good second best as long as it included not
having to support it at all (except for transfers).

As far as bulk access, I feel the same way. That option should not exist at
all, but something like b) might be an acceptable alternative.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 4:18 PM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: 'Paul Stahura'; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: [dow1tf] TR: IPC constituency statement for
Whois TF1

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