RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection

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

Hmmm....good point - I had assumed that there would be some sort of
notice by the registry, but as you point out, the registry doesn't have
any identity information - which puts a big hole in the proposition. The
only clear way out would be a WLS Whois separate from Domain Whois - at
least for com and net...or? (hoping someone a little more procedurally
oriented will jump in here...)



                       -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: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.ca] 
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:02 PM
> To: ross@tucows.com; 'Rick Wesson'; 'Tim Ruiz'
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection
> 
> 
> How would one include the data in the whois record ?  They 
> could include the fact that there is one or not at the 
> registry level, but at the registrar level, it could be a 
> different Registrar that has the domain registered, and the 
> WLS subscription.
> 
> Rob.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 12:31 PM
> To: 'Rick Wesson'; 'Tim Ruiz'
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection
> 
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> 
>