RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection

["Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.ca>]

The Registry would know if there is a WLS on it or not, so they could, in
theory, announce this fact.  It could also announce the Registrar that held
the WLS. The Registrar could then choose to give out the information or not.
But I am not for this.

Personally, I think I am against announcing the existance of a WLS.  As
Registrars, we can find this out easily enough (through the WLS protocol).
(we have to know if it is available to sell, so if it is not, we would know
there is a WLS on it).  On our sales pages, for a WLS subscription, it would
show "not available", which is plenty of info for anyone.

And as to sending the current Registrant an email ... oh my god !  With the
problems we have parsing email addresses for transfers from other
registrars, now we will be required to do this (by contract), to notify a
Registrant we have taken a WLS order for their domain ?  Please, NO !

Rob.



-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:03 PM
To: 'Rob Hall'; 'Rick Wesson'; 'Tim Ruiz'
Cc: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection


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
> >
> >
>
>