Subject: RE: privacy

From: "McGarry, Tom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 18:12:34 -0500

I don't think you've explained why the IESG wants this to be mandatory?  (If
you have, I apologize, can you repeat it or point us to it?)

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 5:29 PM
To: Rick Wesson
Cc: Edward Lewis; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: privacy

On tisdag, jan 7, 2003, at 22:43 Europe/Stockholm, Rick Wesson wrote:

> 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.

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.

> finally I would appreciate it if the IESG would post these discussion 
> to
> the public list as private discussions are just that, private.

The issues IESG has are posted on the I-D tracker, and it is up to the 
editor and wg chair (and that way the wg) how to resolve the issues. 
What we as IESG members have got are suggestions on solutions, and we 
have (as far as I remember) said yes to all proposals.

What we have heard back from wg chairs etc is that they have got 
private messages back from wg members which have issues with the 
proposals, issues with privacy being mandatory _at_all_. They have 
checked with IESG whether things really need to be mandatory, and the 
answer is yes.

What is the difference between what you here point to, and what Scott 
might have proposed later, I can not say, and I don't know if any of 
the IESG members can say straight from our head. We have many documents 
to look at, and we have posted the issues we have on the I-D tracker. 
We must trust the wg chair being able to solve the problem in one way 
or another, and come back to us with updated documents.

    paf

> 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
>>
>