[ga] Re: [ecdiscuss] whois: issues with uniformity

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

Stephane and all former DNSO GA members,

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 08:11:57PM -0800,
>  Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>  a message of 89 lines which said:
>
> >   Indeed ICANN is not in charge of determining global Whois policy
> > of which protocol will or should be used, now or in the future.  However
> > ICANN is trying with the help of the IETF, the BC and the IPC to
> > have a heavy influence on Whois.
>
> I disagree with this vision, which summarizes everything into One Big
> Conspiracy.

  I implied no conspiracy at all in my comments above.  Ergo I must
admit to being confused as to how you arrived at that conclusion
from my above comment/observation.

> IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force
> <URL:http://www.ietf.org/>) has its own weaknesses, but it is not a
> subsidiary of ICANN.

  No the IETF is not and never has been a subsidiary of ICANN.  However
ICANN has officially recognized that the IETF is considered it's
"Good Right hand/arm" as VInt cerf stated about two years ago now..

>
>
> > in ways that may be both beneficial or detrimental...  Privacy
> > and security are two of those concerns with Whois and Whois
> > policy as well as policy and use..
>
> It is certainly a big issue for the future .eu domain. This is why
> EUREG <URL:http://www.eureg.org/> is spending time about this
> question.

  It is a big question/issue for many ccTLD's as well as gTLD's as well.
I would say even more important with respect to gTLD's, because of their
obvious global encompassing nature...

>
>
> >   None the less as CRISP and a number or other private enterprise
> > IT organizations, both for profit and not for profit are working on a
> > number of new or updated Whois protocols that have been expounded
> > here on the former DNSO GA and hopefully will again be presented
> > to and within the now questionable "GNSO"..
>
> For those not versed in Internet history, do note that the CRISP
> effort at the IETF is not, by far, the first attempt to overcome the
> limitations of the old and aged whois protocol. (The main problem with
> whois is the fact that the output is not standardized and not easily
> parsable by programs. Unfortunately, the CRISP working group added
> other requirments, such as cross-registries searches, which are both
> expensive and possibly dangerous for privacy. These new requirments
> jeopardize the whole effort.)

  I disagree with the view that CRISP's stated requirements jeopardize
the whole effort.  Indeed they do add another level of complexity, but
also functionality as well.  Weighing the two, and finding if they balance
or not is perhaps a concern, and certainly a consideration...

>
>
> All the previous attempts (X500, whois++, rwhois) failed, we'll see if
> CRISP does it better.
>
> > abused or misused.  This therefore must be IOHO, in the hands of the
> > registrant alone...
>
> I agree that the registrant must have a word to say but we need also
> laws (like "Loi Informatiques et Libertés" in France) to protect
> him/her. Not everyone is fluent in P3P :-)

  Good point.  Indeed, some countries have such strong privacy
protections, such as the US and France.  Others are slowly
developing them...  None the less such laws will be consumer/stakeholder
driven if ICANN or DOC/NTIA or even other governments do not
act quickly or adequately enough for their populace...

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@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