I never said there was no discussion. I did say there was no discussion
regarding epp1, at least none I can recollect that wasnt of the form: this is when
you are going to implement it.

the problem here with whois is not so much that registrars where not involved,
rather that a "solution" was going to be foisted on registrars regardless 
of if they wanted it or not.

another looming "solution" looking for a prolem, is internationalised domain names,
for which there is no demand. if auda wants idn then it should pay
for all 20 odd registrar systems to be modified to handle idn, because
for most registrars its going to be a non-recoverable investement.

auda has no right to inflict arbitrary costs and changes just to make
itself look good. if auda is prepared to squander big bucks to prop up non
commercially viable operations like aucd then it must be prepared to pay for random
changes it wants otherwise auda has to accept that its the
market and only the market in .au that drives innovation and justifies
investment. nothing else.

Vic



Adrian Kinderis [adrian§ausregistry.com.au] wrote:
> Vic et al,
> 
> Whilst not being directly involved from AusRegistry's point of view I
> have reviewed my emails and found a few conference calls and issue
> papers to Registrars regarding the auDA's WhoIs concerns and proposed
> solutions.
> 
> I do note that Vic, you were not on the conference call of the 12th of
> July where this topic was specifically discussed... although Bennett
> was;).
> 
> Whilst not wanting to side with auDA and supporting Kim's conspiracy
> theory ;) I believe auDA and AusRegistry did discuss the options with
> Registrars.
> 
> 
> That is not to say that appropriate feedback was sought from industry
> stakeholders and the public prior to auDA deciding that a WhoIs review
> was required (I'll leave auDA to respond to that) but Registrars were
> definitely involved in the solution process. 
> 
> >From Maggie Leong's summary paper from the conference call mentioned
> above;
> 
> "Chris Disspain commenced the discussion by reminding Registrars that
> this initiative was the direct result of a WhoIs Policy Review held in
> October 2005. The review highlighted concerns among industry and
> consumers that disclosure of Registrant email addresses on WhoIs leads
> to increased spam. It was therefore proposed that the WhoIs display
> Registrant email addresses in a non-machine readable format".
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> P.S. Does anyone know a good PPC programme? ;)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Adrian Kinderis
> Managing Director
> AusRegistry Pty Ltd
> Level 6, 10 Queens Road
> Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
> Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
> Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
> Email: adrian§ausregistry.com.au
> Web: www.ausregistry.com.au
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dns-bounces+adriank=ausregistry.com.au§dotau.org
> [mailto:dns-bounces+adriank=ausregistry.com.au§dotau.org] On Behalf Of
> Vic Cinc
> Sent: Saturday, 25 November 2006 9:32 AM
> To: dns§dotau.org
> Subject: Re: [DNS] New WHOIS
> 
> Kim Davies [kim§cynosure.com.au] wrote:
> > 
> > It is disappointing to me that this new policy was introduced in this
> > seemingly adhoc way, and implemented the way it is. 
> 
> I think the point was made rather vocally at the last registrar
> conference that
> registrars where not happy about having change foist on them without
> appropriate discussion. for example the move to epp1 was pushed down
> registrars throats at great expense to all registrars for zero benefit
> to registrars or the public or ausregistry. 
> 
> auda agreed to end this unilateralism. auda needs to consider the
> implication of change far more openly and sensitively.
> 
> Vic
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/