<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] FW: Registrars - gTLD Registries Constituencies - Items for Discussion?
- To: Mike Lampson <lampson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: Registrars - gTLD Registries Constituencies - Items for Discussion?
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:01:01 +0000
- Cc: "'Registrars Constituency'" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>, Rick Wesson <wessorh@xxxxxx>, Bhavin Turakhia <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>, brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:48:19 -0400." <BD9201A3.2DE7%lampson@iaregistry.com>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mike,
Ever since ... gosh, before epp saw the light of day I've been trying to
make it so the registries offer a constant api surface to registrars and
to 3rd-party solution and contract operators. When the .info registry
decided that there was advantage in inconsistency, I was not happy.
I agree that:
o the gTLD Registries be consistent in their EPP implementations.
o the sTLDs should also be consistent in their EPP implementations,
and express their unique rules as valid EPP extensions.
<.cat hat==on>
o the ccTLDs are probably outside of our influence, except that
there is no reason why they wouldn't want something that works.
o the pseudo-ccTLDs are probably more amenable to the shared
channel approach, hence to a single api.
Registry operators that break the rules get punished at bid and renewal
time. At this point vgrs, afilias, and nu* have done enough stupid tricks
to make their .net happiness doubtful, assuming ICANN wasn't corrupt and
stupid too.
My two beads worth too...
Eric
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|