Sorry -- Re: Merging RRP and Whois

[Sheer El-Showk <sheer@laudanum.saraf.com>]

Hi,

Sorry about the two double postings.  I was using a non-subscribed email
address and the postings didn't go through so I reposted ... I didn't know
they'de just be delayed.

Sheer

On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Sheer El-Showk wrote:

> > Now, having lambasted the idea of lumping whois into provreg, I've a goofy
> > idea.  Can PROVREG recommend a scalable solution to the consideration of
> > NIC-HANDLES? To my knowledge, this has never been addressed properly, at 
> > least since the days when the IR was split. When we did the RA project, the
> > thought was to tag the NIC-HANDLE with the registrars "stamp", e.g.
> > 
> > 	WM110-NSI
> > 	WM110-RIPE
> > 	WM110-ARIN
> > 
> > but this leads, as friend Bush commented at the RIPE-37 mtg, to inconsistancies
> > between registration agents. IN a nutshell, do we need globally unique IDs 
> > to the registering agents?  If so, who administers that ID space?
> 
> Why would we want global NIC handles?  Transfers?  Data-consistency?  Making 
> life easier for the registrant?
> 
> None of these seem sufficiently important to merit the kind of effort
> (either bureacratic -- if its one big NIC Handle registry; or technical --
> if the registries used a shared/synced NIC Handle DB).  Especially because
> registries may not want to share their NIC handles for various privacy or
> reasons.
> 
> That having been said, what I like about an idea like this is it would
> make it simpler to determine who is authoritative owner of a domain - an
> issue I think we should really consider since it seems to be done mostly
> by "out-of-band" methods (email's sent by the registry -- at least
> Verisign -- to determine the domain owner) -- which I agree should 
> be eliminated.  Still I think a focus on digitally certifying a domain is
> the right way to go, rather than centralizing user information.
> 
> Sheer
> 
>