Re: [registrars] Position Paper??

["Ivan Vachovsky" <ivan@abac.com>]

There is RRP - client and RRP - server.
What Tucows envisions as "open source" in the future -
the server; the client or both.

Does Tucows intend to provide "open source"
RRP server/client and charge "per name" registered as
they did with their "open source" software for registrars?

Disclaimer.
 We are ngTLD applicants for 5 domain names
.biz
.fam
.inc
.cool
.xxx

We do have RRP server available up and running for test by
all interested parties.
http://rodopi.abac.net 



Regards,
----------------------------------
Ivan Vachovsky,
President
ABACUS America Inc. d.b.a. A+Net

      

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
Cc: "Registrars List" <Registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 10:16 AM
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-----