RE: [registrars] Fw: [nc-whois] DRAFT: policy options

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

Gary,

I think I understand your reasoning. We've gone back and forth on this. But
after some experience with thick registries and the related issues, I think
we would tend to agree more with Ross' assesment at this point. Give it a
careful read.

Tim

 -------- Original Message --------
   Subject: RE: [registrars] Fw: [nc-whois] DRAFT: policy options
   From: Gary Boyd <Gary.Boyd@netbenefit.com>
   Date: Fri, March 7, 2003 10:24 am
   To: "'Registrars'" <Registrars@dnso.org>

   Given the recent new TLD trends and the standard ccTLD practice, there
   is an argument for com & net to move to a thick model. This would
   improve control, monitoring and reduce the collective costs.

   In terms of the policy, determining the rules that apply for an
   'individual' may be clouded if for instance the admin contact for a
   corporate domain is a named individual. In terms of displaying the
   admin details due you treat it under a company or as an individual.

   Gary

   -----Original Message-----
   From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
   Sent: 07 March 2003 14:36
   To: 'Ken Stubbs'; 'Registrars'
   Subject: RE: [registrars] Fw: [nc-whois] DRAFT: policy options


   Hello Ken,

   My initial concern, and you may already have caught this, is that the
   document is completely devoid of any discussion about the cost of
   implementing the various options discussed.

   None of the options can be seriously considered without that piece.

   Tim

   -----Original Message-----
   From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
   Behalf Of Ken Stubbs
   Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 7:55 AM
   To: Registrars
   Subject: [registrars] Fw: [nc-whois] DRAFT: policy options

   FYI

   please review this document and get back to me with your thoughts

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
   To: <nc-whois@dnso.org>
   Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 7:25 AM
   Subject: [nc-whois] DRAFT: policy options


   > Please find attached a first (and naturally incomplete) draft for
   > the third part of the privacy issues report. I've tried to keep this
   > as high-level as possible, while still outlining major options and
   > giving some hints at what should be taken into account in any
   > discussion of these options.
   >
   > I hope that this is useful as a starting point for our discussions
   > today, and for further drafting.
   >
   > Regards,
   > --
   > Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
   >



   This email has been scanned for viruses by NetBenefit using Sophos
   anti-virus technology



   This email has been scanned for viruses by NetBenefit using Sophos
   anti-virus technology