Re: <info> Command and authInfo

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

>
> I can't say I agree on this one. First of all, I don't think the registry
should ever deal directly with the customer, that's what registrars are for.
And if you have committed to a registrar, you should do the updates through
the same registrar, or transfer the name to another registrar.
>

As a registrar, I would have to agree with this, but on the other hand,
CIRA, for instance, would probably disagree. They've deployed a hybrid model
in which both the registry and the registrar maintain transactional contact
with the customer. While I mostly hate it, it strikes me that the
/good/bad/something of this nature/ concerning the model probably shouldn't
enter into a protocol discussion. On the other hand, supporting a structure
of this type might lead the wg down the path of including the kitchen sink
as well - clearly not the way to go. I submit that the wg should err on the
side of model inclusiveness and let the implementors make as many safe
decisions as possible about their respective businesses.

Anyways, this policy guy has said too much this year, I'll re-lurk now...'-)

-rwr