RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots

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

Ross,

I think we all agree that we want the Privacy TF to look at this issue. I'm
not sure we need to define in detail all aspects of it for this ballot.
That's what we want the TF to do, and we will certainly have a rep there.
You might propose a friendly amendment to the ballot to address your
concerns.

We will no doubt have the opportunity to form a more detailed formal
position on the topic. But we need to get it added to the TF charter.

Tim

 -------- Original Message --------
   Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
   From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
   Date: Wed, April 2, 2003 8:29 pm
   To: "'Paul Stahura'" <stahura@enom.com>, <registrars@dnso.org>

   > I am all for making an even stiffer restiction on
   > port-43, like not having one at all except to do transfers
   >  IP and law enforcement can get the information via our
   > websites which is more easily protected from mining by for
   > example using gifs that many of us already use there. It is
   > difficult to do this via port 43

   Paul - small problem - there is no clear definition of "IP" or law
   enforcement. Should any member of a bar that identifies themselves as
   an intellectual property attorney be allowed access to the special
   whois that you describe? What about trademark holders? Only registered
   trademark holders or are common law rights good enough? Copyright
   holders? Patent holders? Patent applicants? People with good ideas?
   What about law enforcement? Judges? Beat cops? UN patrolman?

   The problem lies not with the restrictions, but with the application
   of those restrictions. Subjectivity of this nature just ends up
   costing us money - money that none of us should be willing to spend
   this easily.

   -rwr