ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [registrars] Proliferation of registrar locks

  • To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [registrars] Proliferation of registrar locks
  • From: "Paul Lecoultre(CORE secretariat)" <secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:37:29 +0100
  • Cc: ross@xxxxxxxxxx, Registrars@xxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <034401c4cb26$c25606b0$102c12ac@jomax.paholdings.com>
  • References: <034401c4cb26$c25606b0$102c12ac@jomax.paholdings.com>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910

Tim,

You are right, experiences will gives more answers. Personnally I was more
worried to the fact that registrars moved to the automatic lock status rather
than with the consequences that it will (not) bring. Since this summer we
got experiences about the by default lock status at registrars.

Regards,

Paul


Tim Ruiz wrote:

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-----







--
CORE Internet Council of Registrars   http://corenic.org
WTC II, 29 route de Pre-Bois, CH-1215 Geneva, Switzerland
Tel +4122 929-5744 Fax +4122 929-5745 secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxx



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>