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

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> I can see your point, and I agree that all things considered, 
> a simpler and more standard process is better.  On the other 
> hand, given that we are talking about the implementation of 
> something which is likely eventually to get translated into a 
> contract, we should probably keep in mind the question of 
> which data are supposed to be the real ones.  I can certainly 
> imagine a case where differences between different whois 
> servers' outputs turns out to be the basis for litigation.

The question is which one is more likely to be correct. I'd bet every
time on the losing registrars server over that of the registry. I know I
would lose once in a while, but in the vast majority of bets, I'd come
out ahead.

> I'm not sure how to discuss this without talking about 
> implementation issues.

Like this;

 - Is "A" implementable?
 - If no, then why not?
 - What are the alternatives?

Jumping to the conclusion that because the recommendation doesn't jibe
with someones interpretation of current or desired policy doesn't mean
that the recommendation is not implementable.



                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/blog


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nc-imp@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-imp@dnso.org] On 
> Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 1:22 PM
> To: nc-imp@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [nc-imp] Draft v2.0 of the Transfers 
> Implementation Report
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 01:03:03PM -0500, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> 
> > ICANN's definition of "authoritative" is a bit of a red 
> herring. I'm 
> > more interested in consulting with the Whois server that is most 
> > likely to provide the most useful (read: accurate) information in a 
> > manner consistent with my processes. Making distinctions 
> like this on 
> > a tld, by tld basis add complexity without adding value.
> 
> I can see your point, and I agree that all things considered, 
> a simpler and more standard process is better.  On the other 
> hand, given that we are talking about the implementation of 
> something which is likely eventually to get translated into a 
> contract, we should probably keep in mind the question of 
> which data are supposed to be the real ones.  I can certainly 
> imagine a case where differences between different whois 
> servers' outputs turns out to be the basis for litigation.
> 
> > Further, this strays into specification of implementation, not 
> > analysis of recommendation.
> 
> But the recommendation is full of references to the losing 
> registrar's whois server, so it seems we've already strayed.  
> I'm not sure how to discuss this without talking about 
> implementation issues.
> 
> A
> 
> -- 
> ----
> Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
> Liberty RMS                           Toronto, Ontario Canada
> <andrew@libertyrms.info>                              M2P 2A8
>                                          +1 416 646 3304 x110
>