RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection

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

That sounds like a reasonable way forward (and consistent with current
practice).



                       -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: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com] 
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 12:55 PM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader
> Cc: 'Tim Ruiz'; registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> > >
> > >
> >
>