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

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

Ed,

At Pittsburg Fred said from the podium that his side of the table (the IESG)
did not have all the clue. Here we have assertion without justification for
novel functional requirements -- which is different from the prior IESG dicta
on manditory mechanisms, e.g., congestion control.

Now is it sensible?

Since London we seem to have been in agreement that some policy required a
mechanism to disclose some operational practice -- "data protection", and
"privacy" were the rationals.

This week, these rationals seem to be abandoned. There is no "protection"
no privacy, only a non-specific access mechanism.

Mind, this is only for the client-side mechanism.

Still, did Randy want the same technical specification for his personal
registration as Verisign has for its corporate registration? I don't know
that he did. Maybe that is all he ever wanted.

It concerns me, no it irks me, that IESG clowns blow in with personal opinions
and fob them off as professional opinions. Yes, we must make less-than-best
choices to actually have something multiply independently implemented, but it
does not strictly follow that we must do what Fred would not dare -- assert
that better knowledge is always on the IESG side of the table.

It is not sensible to assert the non-existance of "personal data". There is
a set of references that specify, partially, incoherently, but not negatively,
some semantic that attaches to datagram, circuit, postal, and other network
endpoints, as well as to names, when associated with individual persons.

Ed, where is the call for consensus on the IESG fiat?

I still don't think chair-hats have interesting opinions on technical issues,
ever.

This could have been so much easier if the drive-by shooters had stopped to
find out if their aim was in fact perfect.

Eric