Re: [ietf-provreg] legal entity vs individual person

[Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>]

On Wednesday, April 16, 2003, at 04:15 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams in 
Portland Maine wrote:
>
> Oh, you're clear enough.
>
> "Registrants include individuals, organizations, and corporations."
> A line from 3375, three buckets.
>
> "Social information associated with registrants may thus be associated
> with human, corporations, and organizations."
> A line from Hardie, same water in each bucket. This ignores the minor
> problem that we don't know what "social information" is. It originally
> ment anything that didn't get into a zone file -- billing data, ICANN
> cruft, garbage.

You misread me here.  I didn't say that the same information
is associated with each of the three; I said that information
of the same class (social information) may be. I think this
follows from the existing documents (both 3375, and, to
some extent, the charter).

> What this bald assertion misses is the possibility of the existance of
> properties of data that are not uniform across all three buckets.
> I think such an assertion is fundamentally unlearned.

Again, I didn't say that the same information was associated with each
of the three.  That the information is all of the same class also 
doesn't
say that its other properties are uniform.


> "... a mechanism (dnd) applies only to a single registrant type is to
> presume something about local policy."

I think that quote elides a critical verb:

>   To expect that
>  a mechanism (such as Do not distribute) applies only to a
> single registrant type is to presume something about local
> policy.



> A line from Hardie, no mechanism distinguishing non-uniformity of data
> is general.
> As I said, clear enough.

I'm afraid this is not clear to me.  Do you mean that the mechanism 
Scott has proposed contains
no mechanism for distinguishing among different types of data along some
axis?  Or that my statement did not describe the mechanism (true, but 
not surprising,
since it was about the expectation, not the mechanism)?  Or something 
else?

>> I thought it was moderately obvious; sorry.  The second order threat 
>> is
>> that
>> public data associated with an address could be correlated with other
>> public
>> data to re-create the data distribution problem.
>
> No. We missed "correlation with other public data" (on-line or 
> off-line)
> when drafting 3375.

Glad to have lifted the rock for you.
							regards,
									Ted Hardie