RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 3:42 PM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots



> Then I will be forced to vote against this.

Same here Rob. I had earlier considered attempting to put together an
amendment to this motion, but I no longer think that we're all that that
close to what I believe Elana is attempting to put forward.

As I mentioned earlier, her motion is overly specific and entrenches the
views that whois (as opposed to a replacement technology) continues to
be made available, that some users have more right to access the data
than others, that some form of differentiated access be used to ensure
that those with more rights are treated differently than those with less
rights and requests that the privacy task force work to amend whois data
requirements per the above implications.

I'm more in line with the thinking that you and Paul put forward, but
also believe that there is a better way to deal with Whois that may not
live on 43 - or necessarily with the registrar or registry of record.

In other words, there are a lot of ways to skin this cat and we
shouldn't be taking a vote that's says how or what at this early stage
before we've had the benefit of further dialogue.



                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/