Re: [gnso-irtpc] Additional Question Relating to Issue C of IRTP PDP Part C

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

me too.  good catch Rob.

mikey


On Nov 23, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Steele, Barbara wrote:

> 
> I am fine with this approach.
> 
> 
> 
> Barbara Steele
> Director of Policy
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of James M. Bladel
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 10:35 AM
> To: rob.golding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-irtpc] Additional Question Relating to Issue C of IRTP PDP 
> Part C
> 
> 
> Good point, I think this is best answered by Registries. Although
> Registrars are free to respond with any operational / technical problems
> or challenges this creates.
> 
> Thanks--
> 
> J.
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-irtpc] Additional Question Relating to Issue C of
> IRTP PDP Part C
> From: "Rob Golding" <rob.golding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, November 23, 2011 8:16 am
> To: <gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
>> Relating to Question C, registrars are asked to provide specific
>> information as to where proprietary IDs are currently being used by
>> registries that the use of IANA IDs instead would be preferred /
>> beneficial
> 
> Isn't that a question to put to the *registry* rather than *registrar* ?
> That way it's asked and documented Five times, not N thousand times.
> 
> FYI: all the "Affilias" run TLDs use proprietory identifiers
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> 

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)