[registrars] FW: [dow1tf] TR: IPC constituency statement for Whois TF1
Ross Wm. Rader
ross at tucows.com
Tue Mar 30 22:18:01 UTC 2004
On 3/30/2004 3:50 PM Tim Ruiz noted that:
> Paul,
>
> As you know, Go Daddy believes that port 43 should be severely restricted,
> if not done away with all together. By severely restricted I do NOT mean
> some kind of tiered access. I mean most access to port 43 should be stopped
> entirely.
But what should the policy be:
a) remove port 43
b) allow registrars to manage the service as they see fit
c) do nothing.
My preference is b) within tightly controlled bounds. I kind of like
having port 43 around for a lot of reasons and would prefer to be able
to respond to the needs of the market within the confines of a policy
rather than being forced into a position where a policy prevents an
entire course of action (as with a)
A similar policy outcome for dealing with Bulk access to customer data
makes similar sense.
The market will almost always be a better regulator.
--
-rwr
"Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
All life is an experiment.
The more experiments you make the better."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org
More information about the registrars
mailing list