Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] in preparation for the call tomorrow
hi, Thanks for this bit of history. It explains a lot of the original technical arguments, yet still does not point to there having been a prior policy decision by the Board where all the aspects of the difference where discussed by the community and a decision was made to go beyond the current predominant model. It also goes some way to explain why Registries should be authoritative and not registrars, doesn't it? avri On 18 Oct 2013, at 21:19, Volker Greimann wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > thank you for this detailed information which confirmed our basic assumptions > leading up to our report. Very helpful! > > Best regards, > > Volker > > >> Rick is right about the discussion of thick vs. thin. It took place way >> before ICANN got involved. In fact, the first thick registries (.biz and >> .info) voluntarily chose to be thick in their applications in 2000. We >> chose this because we believed there was greater security in thick >> registries, better back-up (at a time when no registrar did data escrow), >> and help to the transfer process. I believe it was built in some of the >> early models of EPP (which we called XRP back then) before it was a >> standard. >> >> More trivia…back then it was called a politically incorrect “fat model” as >> opposed to “thick”. off topic: I tend to think calling someone thick is becoming as, or more, politically incorrect than calling someone fat. Personally I accept that I am fat, but call me thick and I worry. And no one objects to a fat paycheck. Attachment:
signature.asc
|