RE: [registrars] Fw: [nc-whois] DRAFT: policy options
Given the recent new TLD trends and the standard ccTLD practice, there is an
argument for com & net to move to a thick model. This would improve control,
monitoring and reduce the collective costs.
In terms of the policy, determining the rules that apply for an 'individual'
may be clouded if for instance the admin contact for a corporate domain is a
named individual. In terms of displaying the admin details due you treat it
under a company or as an individual.
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: 07 March 2003 14:36
To: 'Ken Stubbs'; 'Registrars'
Subject: RE: [registrars] Fw: [nc-whois] DRAFT: policy options
My initial concern, and you may already have caught this, is that the
document is completely devoid of any discussion about the cost of
implementing the various options discussed.
None of the options can be seriously considered without that piece.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
Behalf Of Ken Stubbs
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 7:55 AM
Subject: [registrars] Fw: [nc-whois] DRAFT: policy options
please review this document and get back to me with your thoughts
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 7:25 AM
Subject: [nc-whois] DRAFT: policy options
> Please find attached a first (and naturally incomplete) draft for
> the third part of the privacy issues report. I've tried to keep this
> as high-level as possible, while still outlining major options and
> giving some hints at what should be taken into account in any
> discussion of these options.
> I hope that this is useful as a starting point for our discussions
> today, and for further drafting.
> Thomas Roessler <email@example.com>
This email has been scanned for viruses by NetBenefit using Sophos
This email has been scanned for viruses by NetBenefit using Sophos anti-virus technology