RE: [registrars] Position Paper??

["Beckwith, Bruce" <bbeckwith@netsol.com>]

Richard,

The NSI/VeriSign Registrar supports Larry's re-wording (Mike's original
wording), i.e., "existing Registry Registrar Protocol",  since it would be
the quickest way to market if we used an existing and currently available
protocol.

Regards,

Bruce

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Larry Erlich [mailto:erlich@domainregistry.com]
		Sent:	Tuesday, November 07, 2000 12:01 PM
		To:	Richard Lindsay
		Cc:	mpalage@infonetworks.com; Registrars List
		Subject:	Re: [registrars] Position Paper??

		Richard Lindsay wrote:

		> The individual points Mike has identified are fine, with
the
		> exception of:
		> 
		> > * Registrars favor use of existing RRP protocol for
shared registries.
		> 
		> since many proposals do not use the exact same protocol.
It may
		> be reworded to say:
		> 
		> Registrars favor use of a Registry Registrar Protocol that
will
		> ensure fair access for all Registrars, and encourage that
a
		> protocol be submitted to the IETF such that an open source
		> solution will be available to all registries.
		> 
		> Or something like that.  I think we can actually do
without
		> the point if there is any dissent.
		> 

		Richard, I prefer Mike's original statement. 
		Not "a Registry Registrar Protocol" but
		"existing Registry Registrar Protocol". 

		Larry Erlich

		http://www.DomainRegistry.com

		-- 
	
-----------------------------------------------------------------
		Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
		215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply:
erlich@DomainRegistry.com
	
-----------------------------------------------------------------