[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: privacy
Let me rephrase what I heard IESG saying, as sponsoring AD for this
document. As IESG is cc:ed people can jump in and correct me, or add
more/different things.
First IESG completely agree the issues with privacy is complicated. The
laws and requirements in different countries are very different, and
basically differ in for example the following ways for "white-pages
information":
- Whether opt-in or opt-out in a public database is the function needed
- Whether the opt-in/opt-out is allowed to be implicit, or if it
must be implicit
- What information a registry can say is mandatory to allow being
public
- ...
These requirements which certainly differ not only between registries
but also what legislation the registrant belong to is clear. In various
communities discussions exists wether for example it is ok for the
registry outside of Sweden to publicly publish social information about
a domain name holder from Sweden if the registrant is a private person.
The input I have got from lawyers in Sweden is that publication of such
information in whois is not ok if not the registrant has explicitly
said yes to it. And, competition legislation say it is not ok for a
registry to require this (implicit opt-in) to get the service.
Of course, these people I have talked with can be wrong, but similar
examples exists in Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands. This issue
is discussed heavily in for example CENTR Legal group (I forgot the
name of this group) because the "requirements" ICANN has put on whois
and ccTLD is violating the local law in some countries.
These differences together with the requirement in RFC 3375 that the
protocol MUST be able to handle the cases that one have:
- multiple registrars connected to one registry
- one registrar connecting to multiple registries
- one object being associated with other objects, possibly under
authoritative control of a different registrar
- one registry being thin, another thick (when looking at
where social information is stored)
These three rules are just some signs that the protocol MUST be
something which is interoperable between multiple implementations, and
this in turn lead to the need for multiple implementations which can
handle the various permutations of legal rules for handling of the
social information about a registrant.
Now, what IESG is concerned about is _INTEROPERABILITY_, not so much
privacy.
Are you surprised? I hope not.
Now, IF the wg explain in the specification of epp how interoperability
in the real world is guaranteed, then we are done. Interoperability in
mixed environments when multiple different privacy models are used.
Does this explain the issue better?
paf
On onsdag, jan 8, 2003, at 18:35 Europe/Stockholm, Rick Wesson wrote:
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