RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft outcomes report v 1.6

["Scoville, Adam" <ascoville@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ross - 

 

On a basic level, it seems like we're in agreement: that as it stands,
whatever benefits come from the OPoC proposal aren't worth their
detriment, or as you put it, "major cockup" (whether it be to
accountability on the Internet, or in terms of implementation
difficulties for registrars). I'm sure you don't see David or me as
prime advocates of the OPoC proposal. 

 

For myself, I would simply say I'm here because I'm willing to engage in
trying to address the legal/accountability issues, and that I do not
think the proposal is advisable or something I could support is those
issues aren't addressed.

 

On your other point, no, I'm not an engineer. But I'm not sure I need to
be an engineer to comment that from a user perspective, what seems to be
on the table here seems quite similar to what is required of users by
many other on-line services. If "a process inside a blind n-tier system
that primarily consists of API driven client/server transactions in a
heterogeneous network and computing environment" is a reason why those
other examples are distinguishable, then perhaps non-technical
explanation would help. Just as it's incumbent on the lawyers here to
try and explain our issues in non-legal terms and listen to the opinions
of non-lawyers on those issues, I think it's only fair for the engineers
to explain your issues in non-technical terms, an not to assert that
only an engineer is qualified to comment.

 

Best,

Adam 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 11:20 AM
To: Fares, David
Cc: Thomas Keller; Dan Krimm; gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft outcomes report v 1.6

 

Fares, David wrote:

> Tom,

> 

> If the OPOC proposal were to be approved and implemented, it would

> create new obligations/burdens for many different groups.  I do not
see

> why registrars should be spared from assuming new obligations as well
in

> order to implement the OPOC proposal, which originally was presented
by

> registrars.

 

I would be extremely happy to implement the proposal that was original 

circulated by the registrar community. Unfortunately, after the 

intellectual propert community gots its hands on it, it was 

unrecognizable and unimplementable without excessive cost burdens.

 

If News Corp. needs this functionality so badly, then perhaps News Corp.


should pony up around some of the expenses. Otherwise, those bearing the


brunt of the costs - domain owners and registration providers, should be


afforded the lionshare in determining where costs and obligations are 

allocated.

 

That said - you completely miss Tom's point. This requirement doesn't 

represent a new "burden" - it represents a completely misguided change 

to the way that registrations are processed and the impact of such a 

process comes with immeasurable cost and inconvenience. Translation: the


recommendations of this working group are heading the domain community 

towards a major cockup that will completely and inappropriately reshape 

the registration process.

 

That's not a burden that I'm willing to assume.

 

-- 

Regards,

 

Ross Rader

Director, Retail Services

Tucows Inc.

 

http://www.domaindirect.com

t. 416.538.5492