DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[nc-org] correction to my previous message

Correction is in bold type in the last sentence .... (SORRY FOR THE MIS-TYPE)
 would suggest that the de-accredition phrasing be  removed and instead
and that references to any potential "de-accredition" process  be covered in
the RFP rather than as a policy issue now. if you refer to de accredition
now then we would have to insist that protections be put in place for that
registrar with respect to their existing "book of business".  the only
"de-accreditation" issues you cover with the current phrasing  are
protection of the registrants. what about protection of the registrar who
registered these "grandfather" accounts in good faith ?

this is not the place for this issue to be covered. my suggestion is that
references to de-accredition not be included in this document as it will
send the wrong message to the registrar constituancy.

this is clearly an issue that will have to be flushed out in the future but
NOT NOW  (given the time frame)

ken stubbs

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