RE: [registrars] WLS - VOTING - Objection

[Jim Archer <jarcher@registrationtek.com>]

Ross, I think you should be advocating a "no WLS at all" position, in 
accordance with the desires of the large majority of the RC.


--On Monday, July 22, 2002 12:30 PM -0400 "Ross Wm. Rader" 
<ross@tucows.com> 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
>>
>>