RE: [registrars] Position Paper??

[Nikolaj Nyholm <n.nyholm@speednames.com>]

Speednames agrees. One open protocol submitted to the IETF.
Open source server-side not necessary as long as protocol is completely
standardized.

/n

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antony Van Couvering [mailto:avc@nameengine.com]
> Sent: 7. november 2000 23:23
> To: Larry Erlich; Richard Lindsay
> Cc: mpalage@infonetworks.com; Registrars List
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Position Paper??
> 
> 
> I'd like to weigh in in favor of one protocol, one only.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Larry Erlich [mailto:erlich@domainregistry.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 12:01 PM
> > To: Richard Lindsay
> > Cc: mpalage@infonetworks.com; Registrars List
> > Subject: Re: [registrars] Position Paper??
> > 
> > 
> > Richard Lindsay wrote:
> > 
> > > The individual points Mike has identified are fine, with the
> > > exception of:
> > > 
> > > > * Registrars favor use of existing RRP protocol for 
> > shared registries.
> > > 
> > > since many proposals do not use the exact same protocol.  It may
> > > be reworded to say:
> > > 
> > > Registrars favor use of a Registry Registrar Protocol that will
> > > ensure fair access for all Registrars, and encourage that a
> > > protocol be submitted to the IETF such that an open source
> > > solution will be available to all registries.
> > > 
> > > Or something like that.  I think we can actually do without
> > > the point if there is any dissent.
> > > 
> > 
> > Richard, I prefer Mike's original statement. 
> > Not "a Registry Registrar Protocol" but
> > "existing Registry Registrar Protocol". 
> > 
> > Larry Erlich
> > 
> > http://www.DomainRegistry.com
> > 
> > -- 
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
> > 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
>