On 18 Aug 2022, at 7:59, John C Klensin wrote: > (3) Or if, as I believe one of your recent notes suggested, > those alternative addresses are strictly a matter between the registrar and registrant, that raises two other questions. > First, if a registrar is in need of the information to > adequately communicate with the registrant, why isn't the > registry and those with legitimate access to registry databases? Don't forget two (more) things: - We can not allow new registrar-registrant issues increase trouble for the registrant to transfer a domain from one registrar to another. - A registrant is doing business with one or more registrars, and a registrar make business with one or more registries (for the same registrant). We do not need more diversity between registries and registrars, we need less. The more similar rules the registries have, the easier it is for the registrant to register their favourite label in more than one TLD. And the more freedom (and difference) in the interface between registry and registrar (the "e" in "epp"), the more complicated it is for the registrar to explain and implement the differences to and on behalf of the registrant. It is already too hard I think. Registries view is that they have many registrants. In the real world, a registrant use multiple registries. Patrik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
