Re: [ietf-provreg] provreg @ ietf56

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

> Questions for all:
> 
>     What's wrong with "dnd"?  Do Not Disclose to anyone in anyway,
>     other than to sponsoring registrar.  "Existence of domain name?"

Several things:
	1. The existing specifications informational commands did not forsee
	   a non-uniform read access model,
	2. Limitations on recipient (aka "disclosure") do not extend to the
	   purpose, recall that registries and registrars routinely repurpose
	   registration for own-marketing (e.g., "buy all three" UCE that went
	   to CNO registrants two years ago), nor to retention, etc.
	3. SRS writer (registrar) acts independent of SRS store management
	   (registry) access policy obviate (remove the necessity, and even
	   the utility of) access mechanism(s).

>    What happens if the registry is legally coerced to disclose anyway?

Then the SRS store management (registry) acts independent of the SRS writer
(registrar) attempts to restrict the access model. Whether the "legal" comes
from an ICANN contract or a lawful seizure, is immaterial. The interesting
question, IMO, is where registry policy and practice absent lawful seizure
are not consistent. Without a <dcp>, this can't be discovered in-band.

Thanks for getting the meeting minutes out.

Eric