To:
"Karl Auerbach" <karl@CaveBear.com>, "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Cc:
"Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@nic-naa.net>, "George Belotsky" <george@register.com>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, <ietf-whois@imc.org>
From:
"James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
Date:
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 05:15:46 +0800
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Merging RRP and Whois
Why is it that people here automatically assumed that RRP/WHOIS only
serves Domain Names information?
And what makes ICANN the default authority beyond IP and Names and that
RRP/WHOIS is only used by the 80+ Registrars?
IMHO, it is best we do not discuss nor constraint our design based on
ICANN or any defined policy of any group in IETF. Organisation and
Policy will change but Protocol will get stuck for a long time.
-James Seng
> 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