<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[registrars] Bounced Message
NOTE: Just a gentle reminder, I have been getting a lot of bounced e-mails.
Because the registrar listserv is a "CLOSED" list you can only post from
your authorized e-mail account. I make attempts to forward bounced postings,
but there is not enough time in the day :-)
The following was a bounced message originally posted by Clive Flory.
Melbourne IT endorses the statement "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."
Clive Flory
Melbourne IT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 2:17 PM
Cc: Registrars List
Subject: RE: [registrars] Position Paper??
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The existing RRP is only suitable for registry models that replicate
the existing NSI model identically. While I have no overwhelming
issues with Verisign's operations, we must not forget that it is a
negotiated construct that was primarily determined by political
dynamics.
Functional requirements dictated in such a manner do not make for
enduring protocol specifications.
As such, we can only endorse the former statement, "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."
ObDisclaimer: Tucows is an active participant in a number of ngTLD
proposals that favor an extended or modified protocol.
- -rwr
< -----Original Message-----
< From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
[mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
< Behalf Of Larry Erlich
< Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 11:01 AM
< 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
< -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.7 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOghHCG+3tRWQJwEJEQLI7QCgxSDeuOdXQQNBqx92ZYdBYukZcXoAnjJ2
tEEIax4F7Pz2M4MB17k9uCcv
=mICw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|