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

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, it has been rejected by the narrow range of ip interests that have 
captured this group, but I suspect that support for it hasn't waned in the 
larger GNSOand related communities.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: 25/07/07 08:28
Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Comments on WWG report draft 1.5

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