DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [nc-imp] Draft v2.0 of the Transfers Implementation Report


Excellent presentation. We certainly appreciate all the time you and your
staff have put in to this. I would like to comment on a few points in Table
2, but may have additional comments later, or when we meet.

Recommendation 11, Comments and Issues, second paragraph: I'm concerned that
this comment treads dangerously close to limiting competition. It talks
about larger and smaller registrars and then implies a marketing restriction
on the larger registrars to favor the smaller. I strongly recommend that we
remove this paragraph. I think the point comes across fine without it.

Recommendation 24, Comments and Issues, second paragraph: I prefer to see
this comment stated as "Upon receiving any updates to Whois data elements
from the Registered Name Holder, Registrar shall update its database used to
provide the public Whois access at least daily, as currently required by the

Tim Ruiz
Go Daddy Software, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-imp@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-imp@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 2:52 AM
To: nc-imp@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-imp] Draft v2.0 of the Transfers Implementation Report

Hello All,

The attached draft is for discussion at our teleconference in approximately
11 hours time.

Bruce Tonkin

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>