To:
Ram Mohan <rmohan@afilias.info>
cc:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "'Edward Lewis'" <edlewis@arin.net>, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Date:
Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:20:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:
<045001c2db38$d131f980$7700000a@afilias.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] FYI: EPP implementation by the Polish registry
Ram,
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Ram Mohan wrote:
> We're looking into a <dcp> required policy for the .info registry; For the
> .org registry, we're also trying to determine the appropriate technical
> measures that would make PIR's proposed "OrgCloak" data-protection service
> viable.
>
> A session-specific <dcp> mandatory approach is appealing.
I see how a registry might prefer the <dcp> proposal, however I believe
that the <DoNotDisclose> proposal, where a container allows the
client to set which elements should not be disclosed. Though its simular
to <dcp> It potentially allows the registrant to decide which elements to
protect.
<doNotDisclose>
<contact:name>
</doNotDisclose>
Also <dcp> requires the policty to be set by the registry, and <dnd>
allows the policy to be set by the registrant.
I believe empowering the registrant is the direction we should take.
best
-rick