To:
"Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@REACTO.com>
cc:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@sidn.nl>
Date:
Thu, 05 Apr 2001 11:06:57 +0200
In-reply-to:
Your message of Thu, 05 Apr 2001 08:05:22 +0100. <3ACC1932.954BED5D@REACTO.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [cctld-tech] Re: Generic Registry Registrar Protocol requirements
Hi Paul,
First some administrativia: I announced this last call to various
mailinglists, with the intention that people should again be aware
of the work taking place at the provreg mailinglist. But it wasn't
my intention that the discussion should take place on the various
lists but should be contained on the ietf-provreg mailing list
only. Therefore, I bounced your message to this mailing list AND
took the liberty to subscribe you to the list as well. Furthermore,
I removed the cc's to the other mailing lists (tech@lists.centr.org,
dnr-forum@lists.centr.org & cctld-tech@wwtld.org) in this message.
Hi Scott,
This spec does not contain the framework of individual contact
identification. Why is it missing?
When a registrar causes a serious trouble, the registry does
not have a way to identify a registrant... suggestions??
The draft doesn't specify it explicitly but it can be included in
the ``social data'' (it is a MAY, but I citate from memory so I
might have this detail wrong). It is up to the registry enforce
this data.
For registries based in Europe, EU directive 95/46/EC, says
"data subjects (registrants) must have the ability to inspect
and modify information (including its deletion) directly with
the Data User" (registry).... This direct inspect/modify
provision is in addition to the Registrar which may be the
preferred path by many registries - suggestions?? In the ccTLDs
we operate from the UK we use passwords as a means of
identification, other registries use certificates and others
keys..... For gTLD registries based in Europe they will need
something!!
First, to be strict, the protocol is a registry/registrar protocol,
so this is outside the scope of this particular protocol. If you
want to do allow this, one needs a registry/registrant protocol.
Furthermore, after consultation with Bart Boswinkel, we (Bart & I)
came to the conclusion that this EU directive can be interpret on
in various ways and not necessarily dictates a direct registry/registrant
relation.
jaap