Re: [ga] whois: issues with uniformity
Vittorio and all former GA members,
Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:02:17 +0100, you wrote:
> >The WG is named CRISP (Cross Registry Information Service Protocol),
> >its Web page is
> ><URL:http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/crisp-charter.html>. I believe
> >that former GA members will specially be interested by the Requirments
> I will definitely send a comment to that WG, but I'd like to hear an
> opinion from other GA participants - especially about the following
> sentence (§2.4.2):
> >Intellectual Property Holders have legal rights to the use of domain
> >names based on copyright and trademark laws of various governments.
> I wouldn't think that the IETF is in the business of deciding who has
> rights to the use of domain names... but even if they want to be, the
> sentence is clearly incorrect: IP holders have legal rights to some
> uses of certain alphanumerical strings, and have a right not to see
> domain names used in infringement of such rights, for example for
> cybersquatting or improper competition. But they do not have "legal
> rights to the use of domain names" more than any other registrant.
Good point here Vittorio. However on this issue the IETF takes
its direction from the IESG which in turn gets it's direction from
the ICANN legal staff... Hence why that wording is there..
The big problem I see plainly is that the wording is factually
incorrect in most legal jurisdictions, including the US...
> The document then includes other very worrying proposals - for
> example, it requires the new system to allow for worldwide
> cross-registry searches for domains registered by a given registrant,
> even by substring. There is a provision for some data to be marked as
> "privileged" so that the access can be restricted to privileged
> accounts (which, I hope, will only be released to law enforcement
> agencies), but, for example, there is no provision for *operations* to
> be marked as "privileged".
Another good point that has been discussed in the WG before.
> I think that those operations that allow to systematically track down
> the activities of individuals on the Internet should be limited to
> privileged accounts. Perhaps this limitation should be introduced only
> for domain names registered to individuals, and not for those
> registered to companies or other entities.
Hummm? Why would a distinction between individuals and
companies for registration of DN's be different?
> However, my bottom line is: this document is not a technical
> specification, but it is a requirement specification for a technical
> service. Any technical manager will tell you that requirements are to
> be written by the non-technical customer, with techies acting just as
> support to translate the customer's needs into technically meaningful
> language. In other words, this document (differently from the rest of
> this WG's work) should be discussed in ICANN, not in the IETF.
It should be discussed openly with andy and all interested parties
as even the New MoU for ICANN indicates...
> And there's no worse policy than that made by a group of engineers
> that say (as they say at the beginning of their document) "we are not
> going to address policy issues". The atomic bomb was born this way.
Yet the document does impose policy... Kinda hilarious really... >;)
> vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<---
> -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html