ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [registrars] RE: Call for Constituency statements on Whois tf 1/2 recommendations

Hash: SHA1

On 21/01/2005 3:35 PM Jordyn A. Buchanan noted that;
| One other quick thought in response to Champ's note:
| Given that NSI, and perhaps other registrars, are already implementing
| some of these recommendations, perhaps the constituency statement could
| reflect that we understand the concerns of the task force, but given the
| difficulties of implementation, we do not believe that recommendation #2
| is  practical and should not be adopted as consensus policy.  Instead,
| the constituency could encourage registrars to improve notification to
| registrants on a voluntary basis.

I would support that approach. The essence of my objection lies with the
notion that both the policy and the implementation of the policy are
within bounds for the policy development process. In this case, specific
policies are enacted (good), and then the contractual method of
implementation is specified (bad).

This leaves us with very flexibility, and IMHO, a less competitive
system. It probably goes without saying that this is not a desirable

- --

~                       -rwr

Skydasher: A great way to start your day

My contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
My weblog: http://www.byte.org/

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


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