RE: [wg-c] whois - opperational issues && new gTLDs

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

As far as IOD's .web registry goes, I have to agree with John here.

My personal take on this is to rely upon registrar cooperation in
the short term, but segue to registry action unless the process
is complete in a known amount of time.

--
Christopher Ambler
chris@the.web


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of John
Charles Broomfield
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 3:44 PM
To: Rick H Wesson
Cc: wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-c] whois - opperational issues && new gTLDs



> I know some folks don't like how the whois got distributed when NSI
> Registry went into "shaired" mode.
>
> How do folks propose the whois service to work with additional registraies
> running new gTLDs.
> -rick

As far as I'm concerned, the registry database should contain enough data to
allow a registrant transfer from one registrar to another without any
co-operation from the first registrar. It should contain enough data to
be able to realistically identify the registrant. In other words, if a
registrar dies uncooperatively, it should not be catastrophic for those
registrants that chose it.
heavy-registry/thin-registrar would be my choice as a model, much like what
happens with AFNIC (for .fr) or nominet (for .uk) as opposed to what happens
with NSI (for .com).

Yours, John Broomfield.