Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] in preparation for the call tomorrow

[Rick Wesson <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

There was no "decision point" it was a community effort driven to thick
registries.

You can keep asking for when and where a decision, or declaration was made
-- it was an entire community, a chorus, a consensus that thick was the
direction ICANN wanted to head. If there was any detractor it was by a
company then called Network Solutions.


-rick




On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>
>