To:
Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>
cc:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, <iesg@ietf.org>, <rick@ar.com>
From:
Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Date:
Tue, 7 Jan 2003 13:43:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:
<a05111b00ba40da893fcc@[192.149.252.226]>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: privacy
Ed, I have some thoughts on this. I prefered the capability in scott's second to the last proposal [1] -- I also have an issue with the IESG deciding what in the most appropiate methodology. finally I would appreciate it if the IESG would post these discussion to the public list as private discussions are just that, private. Since we are discussing the privacy of end-users information (that will eventually be published in whois) it seems silly that we are not involved in the discussion and decision process on this topic. Lets put the proposal [1] back on the table and if the IESG has an issue with it lets here from the IESG in this wg, not through our DOCUMENT-EDITOR or the CHAIR but involve those members of the IESG that have a problem with it. -rick [1] http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-12/msg00093.html On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Edward Lewis wrote: > Over the past few weeks the primary concern of the WG has been > preparing an answer to the IESG comments. The one sticking point has > been the comment to provide privacy information at a more granular > level that we now provide. > > There was a meeting of the IESG members involved, your chairs, and > Scott to review the state of the issue last month. The outcome of > that phone call was sent by Scott to the list. I've seen responses > from just two folks publicly and one privately. I've been hoping for > more - and more positive responses. > > First I want to make it clear that Scott isn't pushing this issue > back on to the table because we wants to. This is an issue on which > we are getting feedback from the IESG, and they hold sway over our > documents, as in they have the final word. They are reasonable > folks, but they do hold the final word. > > I promised Scott that I'd wait until today to let folks that have > been out of the office over the past two weeks (plus a day to > download all the pending mail) before prompting the group another > time to consider this issue. > > The crux of the issue is, there are situations in which a registrar > may wish to alter the default privacy considerations for data when > interacting with a registry. Not all registrar-registry environments > will need this flexibility, but there is a claim that some exist. (I > have no personal, first-hand knowledge of any such environments.) > > How can we accomodate such environments? That is the basic question. > > The most recent thread on this begins with: > http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-12/msg00100.html > > Next: Milestones, ROID and other issues... > -- > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Edward Lewis +1-703-227-9854 > ARIN Research Engineer >