[registrars] FW: [dow1tf] TR: IPC constituency statement for Whois TF1
Ross Wm. Rader
ross at tucows.com
Tue Mar 30 23:09:56 UTC 2004
On 3/30/2004 5:49 PM Tim Ruiz noted that:
> Ross,
>
> To be clear, I think port 43 should only be used to facilitate transfers.
> Your option b) below would be a good second best as long as it included not
> having to support it at all (except for transfers).
>
> As far as bulk access, I feel the same way. That option should not exist at
> all, but something like b) might be an acceptable alternative.
It would have to include the option of dealing with it in any way each
registrar sees fit - including not offering it.
Same goes for bulk access. In both cases, I think we end up with a
situation where some registrars would choose to continue to offer it,
some would offer the data via other mechanisms and others still would
deal with it in ways that we haven't thought of. In all cases, I think
it is critical to deal with the problem in a way that preserves these
options.
Simply eliminating them favors one outcome over others and doesn't
provide registrars with a proper opportunity to "compete" for the
right answer.
--
-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