Re: [gnso-dow123] RE: [council] RE: WHOIS combined task force call 1 March 2005
- To: Paul Stahura <stahura@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] RE: [council] RE: WHOIS combined task force call 1 March 2005
- From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:52:58 -0500
- Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Disspain <ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx>, gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <0584E286D9C3C045B61DAB692193170B01F90B13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mail-followup-to: Paul Stahura <stahura@xxxxxxxx>, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Disspain <ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx>, gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <0584E286D9C3C045B61DAB692193170B01F90B13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.8i
On 2005-02-28 11:16:23 -0800, Paul Stahura wrote:
> Tim, I agree. It should be a requirement that the registrant's email
> should be made available to the gaining registrar.
I agree with that, to the extent that the e-mail is collected.
Incidentally, the same is also true for dispute resolution
providers. However, the transfer process does not create a
requirement for the registrant's e-mail to be displayed to the
public at large.
Regards,
--
Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at <http://log.does-not-exist.org/>.