<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report
- To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx PDP DT" <Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:27:16 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>Thanks Mikey,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sorry I haven't been able to make the calls, one thing or another has come
up. I think the current draft and changes look good but I do have one
comment/concern.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It seems to assumes if all regitries are thick that registrars will still
be required to maintain a set of WHOIS data themselves. However, if the
registries are all thick and authoritative for WHOIS data then I see no reason
why a registrar should continue to be required to maintain a duplicate set of
the data, especially since it will also be escrowed by the registry. I
would think a number of registrars would find it useful and cost effective
to simply use a registry's authoritative data instead of trying
to maintain it themselves. And I can easily see an effort by registrars
to change the RAA and/or policies to reflect that.<BR></div>
<div>So I don't think the PDP group should assume that both registrars and
registries will continue to maintain the data. It may be good to note
that possibility. Or alternatively, that may be a question they want to
consider. I don't think it would necessarily be out of scope since it is
tightly associated with whether all registries are thick or not, but others may
have a different opinion.<BR></div>
<div>Best,<BR></div>
<div>Tim </div>
<div> </div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 8px; FONT-FAMILY:
verdana; COLOR: black; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=replyBlockquote
webmail="1">
<DIV id=wmQuoteWrapper>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject:
[gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report<BR>From: "Mike O'Connor" <<a
href="mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx";>mike@xxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>Date: Sat, September
22, 2012 10:03 am<BR>To: "<a
href="mailto:Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a> PDP
DT"<BR><<a
href="mailto:Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx";>Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx</a>><BR><BR>hi
all,<BR><BR>here's the status report for this week. i *think* we're wringing
out the last issues in the draft. so this would be a good time to take a look
at the latest version. what seems to be working well is to run your ideas
through the list so then we can work through them on the call. here's a link to
the draft i pushed out after the last call.<BR><BR><a
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-thickwhois-dt/doc3QzSkLIUIQ.doc";>http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-thickwhois-dt/doc3QzSkLIUIQ.doc</a><BR><BR>and
here's the status report. i'm hoping we can get to a draft we can push out for
a consensus call by the end of the meeting on Thursday.
<BR><BR>thanks,<BR><BR>mikey<BR><BR><BR>
<HR>
<BR><BR>- - - - - - - - -<BR>phone 651-647-6109 <BR>fax 866-280-2356 <BR>web <a
href="http://www.haven2.com";>http://www.haven2.com</a><BR>handle OConnorStP (ID
for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
etc.)<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|