RE: [nc-imp] Draft v2.0 of the Transfers Implementation Report

[Elana Broitman <ebroitman@register.com>]

Title: RE: [nc-imp] Draft v2.0 of the Transfers Implementation Report

I'd like ot support Tim's comment on #11. In fact, I had an additional comment that we should not limit when and how registrars can communicate with their own customers.  It's one thing to insulate the confirmation email and keep it "official," but it's over-reaching to dictate other communications.  So, I would recommend eliminating the 2nd paragraphof the comment.

I also have a question about the comments to #23, which state that the special whois cannot be rate limited. It seems like there is potential for abuse of this special whois, particularly if some registrars give their resellers the ability to use it.  So, while I appreciate the need to make the special whois highly available, I think we still need a mechanism or trigger for limiting it in order to stop abuse.

But, generally, great job! Thanks, Elana

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 9:22 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin; nc-imp@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-imp] Draft v2.0 of the Transfers Implementation Report

Bruce,

Excellent presentation. We certainly appreciate all the time you and your
staff have put in to this. I would like to comment on a few points in Table
2, but may have additional comments later, or when we meet.

Recommendation 11, Comments and Issues, second paragraph: I'm concerned that
this comment treads dangerously close to limiting competition. It talks
about larger and smaller registrars and then implies a marketing restriction
on the larger registrars to favor the smaller. I strongly recommend that we
remove this paragraph. I think the point comes across fine without it.

Recommendation 24, Comments and Issues, second paragraph: I prefer to see
this comment stated as "Upon receiving any updates to Whois data elements
from the Registered Name Holder, Registrar shall update its database used to
provide the public Whois access at least daily, as currently required by the
RAA."

Regards,
Tim Ruiz
Go Daddy Software, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-imp@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-imp@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 2:52 AM
To: nc-imp@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-imp] Draft v2.0 of the Transfers Implementation Report

Hello All,

The attached draft is for discussion at our teleconference in approximately
11 hours time.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin