Re: [ga] whois: issues with uniformity

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

Dear Vittorio,
I am afraid you are confronted to the yankee binary analysis 
(telecom/information good/bad profit/loss) which reduces complexities (and 
usual European three levels thinking is a complexity) by similarities ("IP 
is similar to property ? so let apply the same rules").

This has certainly a lot of advantages when initiating a process, all the 
more when it is a complex one involving many different cultures. This is an 
immediate tactical decision taking thinking.

The problem is that it creates an over simplified unreality (as you say: by 
engineers) which must be accepted by everyone. As soon as a significant 
number of partners get real (usually ternary) there is a major problem. 
This is what is happening everywhere on the network now its societal usage 
get mature and its insecurity is disclosed and understood. More complex 
strategical thinking is needed.

Here, the real concept is to be TIA compatible, so it can be sold on the US 
market. This compatibility can be by its own (IRIS) or throught M$ (now M$ 
wants to be A to Z IETF compatible). The trick is X.500, LDAP, XML. This is 
pure engineering leading to 74 years old nuns and Peace Nobel 
Prize  organisations being labelled "criminal terrorists" (Denver police 
files). You are right about the atomic bomb: the process they have engaged 
is very similar to the 1942 war effort, also lead directly by the WH (wait 
for Jan 15th for the final document). The today bomb will not affect the 
bodies but the brains. Bodies will only come when people from all over the 
world oppose such an "e-colonization" process.

On another end we need to proceed. This is why we need - as I proposed on 
the @large list - to work on a technical; societal, political ternary 
vision of the e-networks and to test it. Engineers must work with users, 
lawyers, sales, politicians. The split between IETF and ICANN that ERC 
consumates and IETF is proud of ("we are engineers") is inept. The 
politician leadership that WH wants, and to the militaries through 
Pointdexter is too. We must unite all that concerns, internationally, and 
work together on a stable, secure and innovative architecture.

Let consider CRISP. You may note that they do not really consider the DNS 
and the nature of the DN (Domain name : LDAP "DN" confusion shows that they 
do not really care about confusing DNS users). They want to invade the DNS. 
For example: had you any discussion on the reason why you would want 
information on the users administratively distributed the way it is? Just 
because some people in 1982 said so in Geneva when thinking about X.500, or 
some clarks or Jon Postel said so in 1984? This is very clerical, 
organizing bureaucracy ... but with billions of compatible machines when M$ 
supports XML ofthesheleves and the DNS down to you credit card and your 
private letters.

Billions of Big Bush Brothers Incorporated. CIA, CIAO, CIANN.

Frankly, all themore today, I have another vision of the human brotherhood. 
Not centered on big bucks, competition fostering and "democratic" votes by 
a few, only centered on a little baby, peace and love to the death. Who is 
real? I do not know.

But I already saw three worldwide network political, commercial and 
operational leading technologies in  thirty years (Tymnet; OSI, Internet). 
I feel we are on the verge of seeing a new one emerging. Up to us to say if 
it will be in war or in peace.

Happy Xmas.
jfc


On 12:17 24/12/02, Vittorio Bertola said:

>On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:02:17 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >The WG is named CRISP (Cross Registry Information Service Protocol),
> >its Web page is
> ><URL:http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/crisp-charter.html>. I believe
> >that former GA members will specially be interested by the Requirments
> >document
> ><URL:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-02 
> .txt>.
>
>I will definitely send a comment to that WG, but I'd like to hear an
>opinion from other GA participants - especially about the following
>sentence (§2.4.2):
>
> >Intellectual Property Holders have legal rights to the use of domain
> >names based on copyright and trademark laws of various governments.
>
>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: IP holders have legal rights to some
>uses of certain alphanumerical strings, and have a right not to see
>domain names used in infringement of such rights, for example for
>cybersquatting or improper competition. But they do not have "legal
>rights to the use of domain names" more than any other registrant.
>
>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. There is a provision for some data to be marked as
>"privileged" so that the access can be restricted to privileged
>accounts (which, I hope, will only be released to law enforcement
>agencies), but, for example, there is no provision for *operations* to
>be marked as "privileged".
>
>I think that those operations that allow to systematically track down
>the activities of individuals on the Internet should be limited to
>privileged accounts. Perhaps this limitation should be introduced only
>for domain names registered to individuals, and not for those
>registered to companies or other entities.
>
>However, my bottom line is: this document is not a technical
>specification, but it is a requirement specification for a technical
>service. Any technical manager will tell you that requirements are to
>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.
>
>And there's no worse policy than that made by a group of engineers
>that say (as they say at the beginning of their document) "we are not
>going to address policy issues". The atomic bomb was born this way.