To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Cc:
"'janusz sienkiewicz'" <janusz@libertyrms.info>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>
Date:
Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:47:10 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD603370673@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: [ietf-provreg] FYI: EPP implementation by the Polish registry
Yeah, where I see a conflict is that the original comment is:
"why do domain/contact/.. not have granular information about privacy?"
The comment itself constrains where there is a concern about privacy metadata.
It seems to me that the only real sensitivity is to social data ("in
principle" as we haven't come to a formal and clear definition of
what that means - as EBW points out), but the comment doesn't hint at
this.
At 11:52 -0500 2/11/03, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>> I would suggest going even further. <doNotDisclose> could be
>> restricted to
>> social data only. That practically would restrict the element
>> to contact
>> mapping only. <doNotDisclose> applied in domain or host
>> mapping could lead to
>> ambigous usage. For example:
>
>[snip]
>
>I suggested this possibility to the IESG back when the topic first came up.
>They've disagreed so far, with the reason being that we're moving from
>technology to policy as soon as we try to interpret where it makes sense.
>
>-Scott-
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer