Re: [ga] whois: issues with uniformity

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Stephane and all former GA members,

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 12:17:20PM +0100,
>  Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu.org> wrote
>  a message of 53 lines which said:
>
> > I wouldn't think that the IETF is in the business of deciding who has
> > rights to the use of domain names... but even if they want to be, the
> > sentence is clearly incorrect:
>
> I agree. IP holders take already too much space, there is no need to
> acknowledge it in a technical requirments document.
>
> > The document then includes other very worrying proposals - for
> > example, it requires the new system to allow for worldwide
> > cross-registry searches for domains registered by a given registrant,
> > even by substring.
>
> This was hotly debated in the CRISP WG (not only on the basis of
> privacy but also because of the cost it will imply for the registries,
> whose machines would have to act as benevolent servers for this
> task). The standard IETF reply is "The requirment is on the protocol,
> not on the actual registries. In other words, the service MUST be
> defined, but the registries MAY choose not to implement it."

  Yes this was debated hotly as you say.

>
>
> I myself have a lot of doubts about that: for instance, if this
> worldwide search is implemented (for the benefits of IPR lawyers), it
> will be included in the standard programs and many registries will
> therefore enable it unknowingly (it already happened with the RIPE
> whois server, which allows search-by-content).

  Very good point here!

>
>
> Also, to continue with your comparison, once you created the atomic
> bomb, there is no doubt SOMEONE will use it. Once you create such a
> worldwide search service, IPR lobbyists will find one way or the other
> to make it mandatory.

  Also a good point here as well.  In fact according to some of our
folks in Wash. D.C. this effort is already under way.

>
>
> > "privileged" so that the access can be restricted to privileged
> > accounts (which, I hope, will only be released to law enforcement
> > agencies),
>
> No, priviledged will typically mean people who pay. Do not forget that
> there is an actual market for cross-registries whois searches (I know
> people who make a living from it).

  Yep!

>
>
> > be written by the non-technical customer, with techies acting just as
> > support to translate the customer's needs into technically meaningful
> > language. In other words, this document (differently from the rest of
> > this WG's work) should be discussed in ICANN, not in the IETF.
>
> I disagree here. Why would the ICANN specify the requirments for the
> future information service of .fr? The ICANN has no rights to discuss
> the whois issues in domains outside of the gTLD it manages.

  ICANN should not!  In fact, ICANN should not be making such
policy for any ccTLD and most gTLD's unless it is going to
actually manage them.  Presently it does not do so...

>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html