RE: [ietf-provreg] provreg wg responses to IESG comments

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

> I understand your position on the core protocol, however we 
> only have one
> use of the core protocol -- domains. We also loose nothing by 
> removing the
> language but loose a lot by retaining it.
> 
> lets drop the marketing language.

I don't think we lose anything by retaining the text (which doesn't say
"we're allowing and encouraging contact for marketing purposes"), and we
lose a lot by softening it.

I don't understand your objection to explicitly disclosing that a server
operator will use data for marketing contact purposes -- if some repository
intends to use data that way, you're suggesting that the protocol not note
it explicitly.  I think softening the text makes this use scenario much less
obvious, taking away an obvious red flag opportunity.  I'd personally prefer
to know up front if I'm dealing with a potential spammer or telephone
solicitor.

By the way, I think you had a typo in your suggested replacement text:

> <contact/>: Contact information not restricted by contact,
> though other AUP may apply

What does "Contact information not restricted by contact" mean?  Plus,
saying "other AUP may apply" only begs the question of "what other AUP?",
and right now we have no way of distributing or announcing acceptable use
policies.

I think it's important to be up front with the purpose of this element,
which is to disclose that data might be used to contact individuals for
marketing purposes.  Softening the text to make this less obvious sounds
like a bad move to me.  It might help me understand where you're coming from
if you explain why you think that disclosing direct marketing practices is a
bad idea.

-Scott-