Re: privacy

[Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>]

Note that I cut off the IESG from the reply - this isn't something to 
clutter them up with.

In as mush as I appreciate where Rick's coming from, I'd just like to 
solve the problem at hand, the privacy issue.  Issues concerning the 
IESG interface (I admit that there are some in general) are being 
discussed elsewhere, i.e.:
    (problem-statement-request@alvestrand.no for subscriptions to that).

It's not that I don't want to hear about IESG interface problem - 
even though I really don't - it's that I don't want to hear about 
that issue here.  If you get my drift.

Okay, but I did say that we are stuck because the IESG has said we 
have to address their concerns.  I meant this to be the reason why 
Scott has had the unenviable task of raising once again the privacy 
issue.  I did not mean this to be a complaint about the IESG 
stonewalling us.  If the WG has sufficient reason for us to not 
address an IESG comment, we need to build a case for that.  It's not 
like the IESG can't change their mind about an issue.

As far as the privacy issue discussion, everything that was discussed 
between "us" has been posted to the provreg list.  BTW, the entire 
call was on clarifying the comments on privacy (which are on the mail 
list archive site).  No document modifying "decisions" or even 
suggestions were made.

Let me ask this of the WG group:

Is there a reason not to add more granularity to the privacy specification?

Should we strive to add granularity?
Should we not strive to add granularity?

At 13:43 -0800 1/7/03, Rick Wesson wrote:
>Ed,
>
>I have some thoughts on this. I prefered the capability in scott's second
>to the last proposal [1] -- I also have an issue with the IESG deciding
>what in the most appropiate methodology.
>
>finally I would appreciate it if the IESG would post these discussion to
>the public list as private discussions are just that, private. Since we
>are discussing the privacy of end-users information (that will eventually
>be published in whois) it seems silly that we are not involved in the
>discussion and decision process on this topic.
>
>Lets put the proposal [1] back on the table and if the IESG has an issue
>with it lets here from the IESG in this wg, not through our
>DOCUMENT-EDITOR or the CHAIR but involve those members of the IESG that
>have a problem with it.

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