[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Cc: "'janusz sienkiewicz'" <janusz@libertyrms.info>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From: Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:47:10 -0500
In-Reply-To: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD603370673@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] FYI: EPP implementation by the Polish registry

Yeah, where I see a conflict is that the original comment is:

    "why do domain/contact/.. not have granular information about privacy?"

The comment itself constrains where there is a concern about privacy metadata.

It seems to me that the only real sensitivity is to social data ("in 
principle" as we haven't come to a formal and clear definition of 
what that means - as EBW points out), but the comment doesn't hint at 
this.

At 11:52 -0500 2/11/03, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>>  I would suggest going even further. <doNotDisclose> could be
>>  restricted to
>>  social data only. That practically would restrict the element
>>  to contact
>>  mapping only. <doNotDisclose> applied in domain or host
>>  mapping could lead to
>>  ambigous usage. For example:
>
>[snip]
>
>I suggested this possibility to the IESG back when the topic first came up.
>They've disagreed so far, with the reason being that we're moving from
>technology to policy as soon as we try to interpret where it makes sense.
>
>-Scott-

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer


Home | Date list | Subject list