Re: privacy

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

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.



-rick

[1] http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-12/msg00093.html




On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Edward Lewis wrote:

> Over the past few weeks the primary concern of the WG has been
> preparing an answer to the IESG comments.  The one sticking point has
> been the comment to provide privacy information at a more granular
> level that we now provide.
>
> There was a meeting of the IESG members involved, your chairs, and
> Scott to review the state of the issue last month.  The outcome of
> that phone call was sent by Scott to the list.  I've seen responses
> from just two folks publicly and one privately.  I've been hoping for
> more - and more positive responses.
>
> First I want to make it clear that Scott isn't pushing this issue
> back on to the table because we wants to.  This is an issue on which
> we are getting feedback from the IESG, and they hold sway over our
> documents, as in they have the final word.  They are reasonable
> folks, but they do hold the final word.
>
> I promised Scott that I'd wait until today to let folks that have
> been out of the office over the past two weeks (plus a day to
> download all the pending mail) before prompting the group another
> time to consider this issue.
>
> The crux of the issue is, there are situations in which a registrar
> may wish to alter the default privacy considerations for data when
> interacting with a registry.  Not all registrar-registry environments
> will need this flexibility, but there is a claim that some exist.  (I
> have no personal, first-hand knowledge of any such environments.)
>
> How can we accomodate such environments?  That is the basic question.
>
> The most recent thread on this begins with:
>       http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2002-12/msg00100.html
>
> Next: Milestones, ROID and other issues...
> --
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
> ARIN Research Engineer
>