RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Comments on WWG report draft 1.5

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tim,

I wholeheartedly support your assessment.  I further
take the view that this WG has been hijacked by IP
interests with the complicity of the Chair.

Best regards,
Danny


--- Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Two wrongs don't make a right. Putting bad policy in
> place and
> then telling registrants its for their benefit and
> so it will 
> cost them more is a terrible mis-representation of
> the truth.
> 
> The discussions/debates of this WG, IMHO, are
> entirely for the
> benefit of the IP community. The original OPoC
> proposal was a 
> a perfectly reasonable, uncomplicated, and workable
> compromise
> that has been basically rejected for no good reason.
> 
> Tim 
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Comments on WWG report
> draft 1.5
> From: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, July 24, 2007 10:10 pm
> To: <gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Comment on Section 6 - Access to Undisplayed Whois
> data, and the
> question of paying for access
> 
> Some have suggested that these access methods may
> cause a substantial
> increase in costs to Registrars, and speculated on
> who would bear these
> costs. 
> 
> Only time will tell, but there may well be
> incremental costs that
> persist after Registrars and Accessors climb their
> initial learning
> curves. 
> 
> If Registrars are unwilling to bear these costs,
> then all Registrants
> should pay a nominal increase in domain name fees to
> cover such costs. 
> 
> Registrants are the beneficiaries of this change in
> Whois access policy,
> and should therefore bear the costs, if any.
> 
> 
> Steve DelBianco
> NetChoice
> Business Constituency member
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



      
____________________________________________________________________________________
Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz