RE: [registrars] DC Head Count

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Thanks Eric.

I am glad I made that subtle joke to Bob, because my unintended softball
which you kindly launched into the upper decks in deep center field has help
shed some additional light on this topic.

See you next week,

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
> [mailto:brunner@nic-naa.net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:39 PM
> To: Michael D. Palage
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org; brunner@nic-naa.net
> Subject: Re: [registrars] DC Head Count
>
>
> > Having gained an increased appreciation of privacy rights ...
>
> Oh look! A slow pitch!!
>
> I'll try and make this geek-free.
>
> In PROVREG (IETF) some people are wrangling over what "privacy" means for
> registrar-registry systems. The positions in play are:
>
> 	o there is no business requirement for automated processing of
> 	  registrant data with "privacy" modification, hence no mechanism
> 	  other than registry-registrar contract is required.
>
> 	o there is a regulatory requirement for <mumble, above>, and
> 	  this requirement is that registrants be capable of "opt-out"
> 	  of WHOIS.
>
> 	o there are business and regulatory requirements for
> <mumble, above>,
> 	  and these requirements are not uniform, further, the requirements
> 	  apply to every element in the "onward transport" of customer
> 	  profiles (resellers, registrars, registries, escrows), again, not
> 	  uniformly.
>
> 	o there are generic business and regulatory requirements
> for <mumble,
> 	  above>, common to mobile device location products and
> domain names,
> 	  and possibly other devices, for which a generic mechanism must be
> 	  defined.
>
> I'm sure, that after burning a year of wax on a customer profile "onward
> transport" industry effort with IBM and other large hetrogeneous
> electronic
> traders, and another year of wax on W3C's P3P putting cookies into the mix
> of P3P policied webbery, and above a year flogging position #3 (above),
> I'm incapable of making "Eric's Restatement of Sports" really impartial.
>
> Both Scott Hollenbeck (VGRS, advocate of position #1, above), and I are
> trying to get the EPP implementor/operator communities to give us a sign
> which general approach is preferable, and to whom. The IESG, apparently
> relying upon bird entrails for devination, advocate position #2, and also
> #4.
>
> But fundamentally, these are what-policies-play-in-what-market questions,
> modified by what-value-registrars-and/or-registries-bring to operational
> problems.
>
> Thanks Michael, I needed a straight man.
>
> Eric
>