RE: [ietf-provreg] FYI: EPP implementation by the Polish registry

[Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>]

At 14:52 -0800 2/28/03, Rick Wesson wrote:
>Ed,
>
>The private discussion the wg chairs have had with the IESG have prevented
>this group from moving forward; therefore I request all communication
>between the IESG and the wg chairs also CC the list.

???  "Prevented" is certainly not the right word.

>We have experenced 4 month delay because of this situation and it is
>unacceptable. We still are in a state of limbo.

Instead of trying to find fault, there should be an offering of 
suggestions.  All of the needed data exist in the archives.

>ed, please restate the issues, proposed solutions, wg consensus (if any
>appears evident) and iesg issues in a single concise e-mail to this wg
>so we can at the very least understand where we are in this process, and
>how we can move it forward.

The IESG comment given during the fall (message dated "Tue, 15 Oct 
2002 11:16:53 +0200"):

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

In a later discussion with Patrik, I was told that the EPP proposal 
did not meet the requirement in Section 8.4 of RFC 3375. ("See the 
MUST part of [1].")

There are three other inputs.  One from Jaap - a look at how privacy 
concerns with .nl impact the issue.  The second is a report and 
discussion on the .pl work in this area.  The third is a message 
describing the EU perspective on why this must be solved.

First message: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:43:22 +0100
Second message: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 18:51:49 +0100, with a followup
                 Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:30:20 -0500 by Scott Hollenbeck
Third message: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:03:26 +0100, Vittorio Bertola

As far as a summary, there's a message dated "Sun, 19 Jan 2003 
21:00:15 -0500" that I sent out, with an ensuing thread.

In the above are proposed solutions, as well as the dcp as it sits in 
the base specification.

The consensus of the WG (or those participating actively on the list) 
is that privacy is too ill defined to put in the base specification. 
I get the feeling from the IESG that thinks the set of those reaching 
this consensus is not representative enough of the Internet in 
general, but this is just a feeling.  (Who out there is not 
engineering to the environment of the shared registry model?  Who is 
engineering toward an independent registry environment?  Are we 
representative of the Internet as a whole?)

I suppose this isn't the concise message you were hoping for, but I'd 
rather the WG figure this out rather than have me spoon feed it to 
you.  E.g., the comment that we don't meet the requirement above was 
answered by me in a thread with an IESG member that ultimately went 
no where.  (Maybe someone else needs to try.)

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