Re: [gnso-dow123] For your review: Revised version of preliminarytask force report on Whois services
- To: "Ross Rader Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] For your review: Revised version of preliminarytask force report on Whois services
- From: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 17:00:45 +0000
Thanks, Ross. I am curious abt something though. And your role in speaking for
the registrars is helpful. So, does that mean 600 registrars are given a free
ride by ICANN and don't actually have WHOIS? And if so, isn't that a violation
From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:28:38
To:Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:'Maria Farrell' <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>, gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] For your review: Revised version of preliminary
task force report on Whois services
Marilyn Cade wrote:
> However, I don't believe that this is supportable over 800 registrars. Some
> form of standardized procedures will undoubtedly be needed to bring
> certainty and predictability to registrants, irregardless of the interests
> of registrars to develop kinds of services in this area.
Again, I'm going to ask what the basis for this contention is? Your
personal conjecture isn't sufficient to turn "belief" into fact.
If you have data that you'd like to share with the TF on this point, I'd
encourage you to do so. I'd also like you better understand the basis
for your implication that the basis for the registrar policy position is
to support the development of new services. This is simply not the case.
Please also note that the number of operational registrars has been
relatively stable at around the 200 mark and that the remainder of the
registrars in the 800 that you quote are controlled by one or two
entities involved in the aftermarket game. They do not come into play in
consideration of this policy because they do not have real registrants
to speak of.
Finally, I think your conjecture confuses the needs of registrants with
the needs of the intellectual property interests that you and your
associates represent in this discussion.
I would really urge you to reconsider the argument that you are putting
forward considering that you are describing a large part of the
operational requirements that registrars already deal with in their day
to day operations. We are not seeking to change our role as the
maintainer of registrant data in the registration process. The
implications you are making are completely unfounded (but entirely