To:
Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>
cc:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, brunner@nic-naa.net
From:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date:
Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:48:51 -0500
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:36:52 EST." <a05111b02ba53173826c6@[192.149.252.226]>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] where are we with privacy
> I would also like others to comment on Jaap's message and assessment that: OK, part 2. > At 13:43 +0100 1/10/03, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: > ... > >So yes, the non-disclose attribute will work for us without any > >problem. It is possible that we might do extensions to aid with the > ... > > > > jaap \begin{quote} Deelnemers ... Deelnemer worden ... Deelnemers categorie I Voor het deelnemerschap categorie I komen in aanmerking bedrijven in instellingen die zijn gevestigd op het grondgebied van de Euorpese Unie. [Category I participation Category I participation is open to businesses and institutions based within the European Union.] ... Het deelnemerschap geeft recht tot: o het verzorgen van de registratie van domeinnamen ten behoeve van klanten; [Category I participants have the following rights: o To apply to register domain names on behalf of clients;] \end{quote} The "us" (parties having the capacity to register domain names on behalf of clients) for which "the non-disclose attribute will work" appears to be a scoped set of (eventual) EPP participants. The charter for this WG is not to create a registry-specific, or regime-specific, or jurisdiction- specific, or object-specific protocol. How can a registrar signal in-band to a registry that it accepts the general Data Protection framework, and any specific terms and conditions? More generally, how can any two (or more) participants in the onward-transport of customer data signal in-band their data collection practices, and automate the management of onward-transport? Eric