ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [registrars] .net thick/thin discussion

  • To: "Mitchell, Champ" <Cmitchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [registrars] .net thick/thin discussion
  • From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:01:36 +0000
  • Cc: "Larry Erlich" <erlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Jens Wagner" <jwagner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Paul Stahura" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, registrars@xxxxxxxx, owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 29 Jul 2004 09:15:54 -0400." <9E93DEC285888046B8949287D8B8376401352BFA@VAMAIL3.CORPIT.NSI.NET>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 1. Protection of the registrant's personally identifiable information to
> the maximum extent possible and consistent with other legitimate needs for
> information;

There are no "other legitimate needs".

There are lobbies within ICANN. Outside of ICANN, in the pre-ICANN and the
operational net community, two of those lobbies, "intellectual property"
and "law enforcement" are broadly considered illegitimate.

See Leslie Daigle's rework of rfc954 that just ended IETF-wide LC on 6/30
on the first of those two lobbies.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-daigle-rfc954bis-01.txt

You can also find a discussion here:
ftp://nic-naa.net/pub/draft-brunner-rfc954-obsolete-00.txt

originally published here:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-brunner-rfc954-historic-00.txt

See the IAB's summary of the consensus of the RAVEN list on the second
of those two lobbies. While that statement is specific to intercept, and
policy neutral, the requirement for a pervasive access mechanism to some
network critical database(s) with access and management plane issues so
similar to the MEGACO problem, the technical consensus seems to me to be
predictable. When "warrentless" and "free speech" are added in at least
one jurisdiction, the policy complications are evident.

See:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2804.txt?number=2804

Welcome to the War of the Lobbies.
Eric
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>