On 3/4/10 10:53 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 3/4/2010 4:31 PM, Alex Bligh wrote: >> May be it's not a thick vs. thin distinction per se, but a "what happens >> if registrant falls out with registrar" distinction. Thick registries >> that have a direct contract with the registrant (e.g. Nominet) tend tob >> be rather less willing to let a losing registrar intermeddle. May be >> this is isomorphic to the beneficial ICANN involvement suggested. > > You're undoubtedly aware of this but in RRR parlance "thick" means that > the registry stores all of the registrant data, and in a "thin" registry > they store a subset (generally a very limited one) and a referral to the > registrar. The two terms have no reference to the nature of the > relationship between the registrant and the registry. > > In the gTLD world the registrars jealously guard their relationships > with their customers (the registrants), and registries are not allowed > to have direct contact with them. This situation is unlikely to change > in any material way which is why I suggested ICANN involvement may be > necessary if there is agreement that conscious acts on the part of the > losing registrar will be required for the smooth transition of a secure > zone.
<multiple hats, but in particular, registrar hat == on> I suggest that some registrars will be collaborative, and the recourse to ICANN's registrar compliance staff is not the first alternative to seek. Eric _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
