RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Ross,

personally I'd prefer notice at the registry whois that there is a WLS on
the domain and disclosure at the Registrar level of whom that WLS holder
is.

best,

-rick

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
>