RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection

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

Question of clarification on this point.

There are a number of ways that notice can be served. The two most
discussed options are to either a) include the data in the whois record
for the domain name question or b) provide an email notice to the
original registrant that an option has been taken out on their name.

Keeping in mind that the TF will be discussing the final contents of the
report this afternoon, it is likely that the merits of these two
approaches will be discussed. Unless I hear differently, I will be
advocating for option a) as it doesn't require significant involvement
from registrars with the exception of modifying the whois output. Option
B will likely to muddy the registry-registrar-registrant relationships
to the point where it could be troublesome to implement the program
while preserving the sanctity of the relationships. At this stage,
unless I hear substantially different, I will not be advocating a "no
notice" position based on the feedback that I have received thus far.




                       -rwr




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

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Rick Wesson
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 12:22 PM
> To: Tim Ruiz
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection
> 
> 
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
> > And I'm not suggesting that the personal information of the 
> WLS holder 
> > not be gathered. Just that it not be publicly available. 
> VeriSign or 
> > ICANN can use it to evaluate the WLS success, or lack of it, or 
> > whatever. I would just hate to see a repeat of the privacy 
> fiasco that 
> > the port 43 Whois program has become.
> 
> 
> look, we don't know what will happen... what we do know is 
> that there will be confusion and my customers that own IPR 
> require that they know when somone has a claim on their 
> property, and the can identify the entity involved, if the 
> information is not public we have larger problems.
> 
> as for privacy, its illusion, is the only thing vanising.
> 
> -rick
> 
>