RE: [registrars] Proliferation of registrar locks

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul,

This seems premature to me. We are only 3 days into the new policy. All you
are doing right now is pre-supposing some aspect of it is insufficient or
that registrar practices are mucking it up. I don't think you'll have a
convincing argument for change unless there is some evidence that there is a
problem. That will take some time, at least more than 3 or 4 days.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 8:49 AM
To: Paul Lecoultre(CORE secretariat)
Cc: Registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [registrars] Proliferation of registrar locks

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 15/11/2004 5:25 AM Paul Lecoultre(CORE secretariat) noted that;

| "I think its appropriate to wait and see what precedents and actions they
| (ICANN) take to clarify this in the coming months".
|
| Shouldn't we define instead the first step?

Yes - sort of. There are review phases built-in to the policy. It is
definitely appropriate for us, as a constituency, to ensure that the
GNSO council and the ICANN staff (who will be undertaking these reviews)
are explicitly aware of our experience, concerns and wishes as it
relates to the implementation and execution of this policy.

So lets start a laundry list:

1. Does the policy appropriately deal with registrar_lock proliferation
and implementation? How can the policy be amended/modified/improved to
take into account the evolution of practices in the market over the last
12 months?

...what else?

- --




~                       -rwr



Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
Skydasher: A great way to start your day
My weblog: http://www.byte.org


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)

iD8DBQFBmMH56sL06XjirooRAlMzAJ99JlFD8rw37ZEs9ArqFqHF6mi7EACcClnk
mgQAqqMcCIh0/35Lb1br82Y=
=QjY1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----