RE: [registrars] Position Paper??

["Paul Stahura" <stahura@enom.com>]

eNom Agrees with all the text from Ross as well.

Also, at Yokohama I advocated use of the
NSI RRP as the only RRP, but now I see that with the
diversity of proposals and models, that RRP would have
to be stretched and extended in a number of directions
to a large degree to cover all the cases.
Therefore one RRP may not be practical.
I do favor the NSI RRP for new gTLDs that
are nearly exactly like .com, .net, and .org
to reduce the number of interfaces registrars
have to make.

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Maureen Ruppert
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 9:55 AM
> To: ross@tucows.com
> Cc: 'Registrars List'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Position Paper??
>
>
> BulkRegister agrees with this text.
> Maureen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 1:17 PM
> Cc: Registrars List
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Position Paper??
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The existing RRP is only suitable for registry models that replicate
> the existing NSI model identically. While I have no overwhelming
> issues with Verisign's operations, we must not forget that it is a
> negotiated construct that was primarily determined by political
> dynamics.
>
> Functional requirements dictated in such a manner do not make for
> enduring protocol specifications.
>
> As such, we can only endorse the former statement, "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."
>
> ObDisclaimer: Tucows is an active participant in a number of ngTLD
> proposals that favor an extended or modified protocol.
>
> - -rwr
>
> <  -----Original Message-----
> <  From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> <  Behalf Of Larry Erlich
> <  Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 11:01 AM
> <  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
> <  -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.7 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBOghHCG+3tRWQJwEJEQLI7QCgxSDeuOdXQQNBqx92ZYdBYukZcXoAnjJ2
> tEEIax4F7Pz2M4MB17k9uCcv
> =mICw
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----