Re: privacy

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Patrik,

> What IESG want is _some_ mandatory to implement mechanism which makes
> it possible for the registrar to say to the registry "Do not disclose
> this attribute to a third party". If the wg want to have the mandatory
> to implement mechanism more powerful than that, fine. What is not ok is
> the protocol not having any mandatory to implement privacy mechanism in
> it, only extensions.

The issue that some folks have with and IESG mandatory to implement
privacy capability in the prov-reg domain registration context is that
addressing privacy just in epp is not a solution. Addressing privacy in
epp also requires addressing it in the publishing protocols.

privacy is a thick issues and I've not seen/herd one prov-reg participant
stand up and say "we understand privacy and here is what should happen"
What we do see on the list and in the meetings is that we are not the
people who should develop a privacy context and we don't know how to do
it.

we have asked for additional direction and get a responses that are obtuse
and confusing. Everyone appears to agree that privacy is a more complex
issue than the IESG is willing to accept and that provreg may not be the
place to define such capabilities.

I request that you consider that this working group may not be capable of
addressing the problem and appreciate your thoughts on the next step if
this proves to be true.

-rick