Re: privacy

[Andrew Newton <anewton@ecotroph.net>]

Rick Wesson wrote:
>>
>>the iesg members specifically said we did not want to decide the method,
>>though some decades of programming practice does suggest one.  what we
>>do care is that there is a mechanism which may be invoked by policy.
> 
> would you please discuss your rationale in the light that all gTLD
> registrations will also be published in the whois negating any utility of
> your requirement.
> 
> furthermore, since gTLD registries and registrars (the primary users of
> this work product) are required by contract to publicly publish this
> information, the paries using this privacy enhanced protocol would be
> exposed to a serious liability concern as registrants expect information to
> be private but contracts require it be published.

I hope that this body of work would also be applicable to ccTLD's as 
well, if they so desire to use it.  In addition, I thought the intent of 
the "E" word in "EPP" was for things beyond domain names.  Given this 
and the requirement for the mechanism to be "invoked by policy", I don't 
see why it should be manditory to implement.

> IMHO, privacy needs to be addressed in a superset of the protocols (epp,
> crisp, whois) and a specific group tasked with that job; requesting
> prov-reg to preform this task appears to be short sighted knee-jerk
> reaction.

If the scope of this would be for domain names, it does seem that there 
should be some effort to make sure everybody is on the same page.  A 
scope larger than domain names would be a rathole.

-andy