Re: [nc-transfer] Standardized definitions

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

Elisabeth,

Thanks for your insightful comments. The feedback is appreciated and I will
ensure that I take them into account when I next revise the document. I hope
to do at least three revisions this year, so hopefully it won't be too long
before you see the fruits of your suggestions ;)

> My prima facies immediate observation (reaction epidermique
> en francais) is that it is very important to NOT re-write old
> definitions to the ICANN gTLD scheme Registry-Registrar-Registrant,
> and be very carreful to some ICANN new concepts, which did appeared
> with new gTLD, and which are not accepted imposed on ccTLD.

As I indicated earlier, it is not my intention to convey any sort of policy
or religion with this document. Hopefully, the definitions are presented in
an entirely neutral manner that allows the reader to use them to support any
policy or religious discussion.

>
> As an example, the word Internic was never associated by
> old Internautes with any webthing, but with
> "whois -h rs.internic.net" query.

The definition avoids both perceptions and sticks solely to the original
description of the InterNIC as a three-way cooperative designed to support
various coordinative goals.


> The "Sponsoring Organization" in plain English (quoting a native
> English European) is associated in Europe with something like
> Formula 1 race, and Camel cigarettes. ICANN try to re-write history
> transforming ccTLD Managers to "Sponsoring" camels, and
> unilateraly put it on their IANA website.

I can see why this term may not have universal appeal. ;) Nevertheless, the
document avoids a definition of this term. I may attempt to put one together
in the near future, but for now, the document is silent.

>
> Re your note "Whois", why you do not mention RIPE database software,
> free and used worldwide.

I was merely attempting to illustrate that Whois is both a protocol and an
application and that the two shouldn't necessarily be confused. It may, at
some point, be worth putting together a separate, comprehensive list of
Whois applications, but this wasn't within the scope of this document.

>
> I stop here, more off line, an input to your document.

I look forward to it - thanks for taking the time out to drop me a note.

-rwr