To:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Cc:
ietf-whois@imc.org, ietf-not43@lists.research.netsol.com, dbwg@arin.net, Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, w3c-p3p-specification@w3.org, iesg@isi.edu
From:
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Date:
Fri, 6 Sep 2002 09:55:04 +0200
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<200209051732.g85HWQP3075043@nic-naa.net>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.3.28i
Subject:
Re: Request to Move RFC 954 to Historic Status
[Long list of mailing lists in the Cc:, feel free to trim. I specially believe that it is OT for Provreg.] On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 01:32:26PM -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net> wrote a message of 178 lines which said: > Then there is the current ICANN announcement of some policy w.r.t. its > Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The RAA contains language which > appears closer to the language in 954 concerning MILNET TAC users than to > the language in 954 concerning individual with a directory on an ARPANET or > MILNET host. Both are in conflict with 95/46/EC, The RAA is certainly in conflict with 95/46/EC. That's a problem with having the ICANN as an USAn company, not an international body: ICANN is not supposed to take European law into consideration. For the policy part of RFC 954 (not the protocol), I hesitate. > I can't speculate on the actual status of :43 deployments by ccTLD operators > located outside of North America. According to our lawyer (IANAL), the whois of the French registry, whois.nic.fr, is legal according to the French law (which is more strict than 95/46/EC). Do note that we do not sale or transfer the database in bulk. Do note also that 95/46/EC does not prevent public directories. > I decided not to include a mapping from the DCA language to a P3P schema, > as for many, the policy scope question (controlling jurisdiction and legal > theory, e.g., "fair trade" (US) vs "human rights" (EU)), not the mechanism > for description and policy-scoped access, is more interesting, and both XML > and schemas and/or DTDs are a distraction. I'll add it to -01. For those interested, EUREG, following a suggestion of CORE, is working with the W3C to develop a P3P expression of a registry's policy. Comments on <www-p3p-policy@w3.org>, please. > If anyone can provide feedback from RIPE-43 and or CENTR (Jaap?), The issue will be discussed monday at the CENTR technical meeting just before RIPE-43.