To:
Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
cc:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>, George Belotsky <george@register.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, ietf-whois@imc.org, brunner@nic-naa.net
From:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date:
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:00:02 -0500
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:38:50 PST." <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101231225020.3003-100000@p2.cavebear.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Merging RRP and Whois
Karl, As I mentioned earlier, when used as intended, whois repurposes and redistributes registrant-originated data. It isn't "customer as status querier" (which I think means registrant) but non-registrant, e.g., Acxiom, or DoubleClick or, ... I understand, but don't share, the view that identification/authentication of both the querier and the responder are bigger issues than what our friends in Europe refreshingly refer to as "data self-determination". Failing over to a policy server, a la Shai Herzog's original paper, is a fine idea, but (presumably) is unnecessary within the ICANN scope of an RRP, where policy is reasonably finite and well-known. How useful it may be where the restriction on query initiators is removed ("public" whois) is TBD. I also agree that with only 67 or so ICANN approved Registrars, sneakernet is a viable trust model. Eric