Actually, I am tending to agree with David on this. This would define roles much better and give the person looking up the info a better idea of who is what for the domain (Actual registrant, our part of the puzzle, and how to reach us).
My $.02 _ivan At 11:51 AM 11/26/2001 -0500, you wrote: >Charles Daminato wrote: > > - move RSP Whois output to be below Administrative > > contact, above Technical and Billing > >This makes us look like a contact on the domain. Is that the way that >OpenSRS really looks at us? > >I could get along with this -- in a way we are a "contact" regarding the >domain. But I really don't like looking at it this way, with the RSP as just >another "domain name contact" kind of like the admin/tech/billing contact. >In my mind, only the registrant should specify "contact" information. > >This is how I look at things: WHOIS was designed to distribute REGISTRANT >information about a domain name. Registrar tech support contact information >like this doesn't *really* belong in WHOIS at all, but rather on the >registrar's website. However, we need RSP tech support info listed because >of the reseller model that OpenSRS employs. So, IMHO, the RSP tech support >info should be very clearly separated from the registrant information in the >WHOIS. > >Ideally, I'd place the RSP info at the very bottom, below all else, >separated by a dashed line. A little blub could give an overview of the >reseller model, thus answering the "who is Tucows" questions. I think this >would best resolve any confusion that a registrant might have. Example: > >}} ============================================ >}} >}} This domain name registration is being provided through the OpenSRS >}} system (a division of Tucows) by the following company. Please contact >}} them for technical support regarding this domain registration. >}} >}} DRH Internet Inc. >}} 410-461-5316 >}} http://www.drh.net/ > >I wish I had suggested this earlier. :-) > >But, as I said, I can live with the existing proposal. I've been kind of >worn down by all the discussion and the Big Delay from OpenSRS in getting a >proposal back to us. :-) > >David
