[registrars] Thick registries

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

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Patrick
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 8:59 AM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] Registrars Collecting on Multi-Year
Registrations


<snip>
And, Siegfried, for better or for worse the current path seems to be
toward thick Registries. You may disagree (I do), but it is life.
</snip>


Patrick and all,

I would encourage us to be careful when we start talking about "thick
registries".  I believe this term is often used to describe a registry with
centralized whois, as opposed to an actual thick registry.

Here is how I see it.

There are currently 2 types of "thin" registries.  Those with distributed
whois (like .com) and those with centralized whois (like .biz).

However I don't believe either of those are "thick" registries.  I believe a
"thick" registry is one where the Registrant has absolute control over a
domain, not the registrar.  For example, with .ca (and I believe .uk) who
are proud of the fact that they are "thick", there is a contract DIRECTLY
between the Registry and the Registrant.  Additionally, the Registrant must
LOG INTO the Registry site with a seperate USERID and Password and approve
ANY changes made to the domain record (even though the changes are made by
the Registrar).

Basically, "Thick" Registries view the Registrant as having control of the
domain, NOT the Registrar.

In the case of .com and .biz, the Registrar still controls and maintains the
domain fully.

I suggest we be careful, and clearly distinguish between:

Thin Registries
Thin Registries with centralized whois
Thick Registries

Too often we are refering to "Centralized whois" as a "thick" Registry and I
believe this is fundamentally incorrect and dangerous.

Rob.