On 5/14/13 13:32 , David Conrad wrote:
Hi,
On May 14, 2013, at 11:02 AM, David Farmer <farmer(_at_)umn(_dot_)edu> wrote:
The third goal you refer to focuses on the need for "accurate registration
information ... in order to meet a variety of operational requirements." I believe
this to be a valid technical concerns of the IETF, it is difficult to imagine how a
global Internet can technically function without this. So, I think it is important for
it to remain in the draft.
I would also point out that the third goal makes no statement on whether the
registration data is publicly available or not.
However, issues of privacy, law enforcement access, and a myriad of other
extremely important issues related to the Internet Numbers Registry System are
outside the technical and operational scope of the IETF. The whole point of
the draft is to document the issues that are properly the concern of the IETF
towards the Internet Numbers Registry System and to pass the rest of it to the
multi-stakeholder environment of ICANN and the RIRs to hash it out.
Exactly. Section 4 notes that provision of "public WHOIS" has been a technical
consideration and that "it may be necessary for the Internet community to examine these and
related technical and operational considerations and how best to meet them."
I agree with everything you say above regarding public available of the
registration data. However, at the same time Section 7, quoted below,
makes a very strong argument for it to remain public.
"It is generally recognized that accuracy and public availability of
Internet registry data is often an essential component in researching
and resolving security and operational issues on the Internet."
So lets play a little hypothetical here; What if an RIR or ICANN
through a global policy decided Whois Data no longer should be public
for overriding privacy reasons. My read of Section 5, is that would be
proper path for such a change, and long as the technical guidance of the
IETF is considered in the process. But then through RFC 2860 and
Section 5, if the IETF objected on technical or architectural grounds,
and formally through the IESG, then the IAB would essentially adjudicate
the issue. And ICANN or the RIR are obligated to accept the decision of
the IAB. Do I have that right?
To be clear, I'm not advocating Whois should or shouldn't remain public,
or that anything is wrong with the Section 5. This just seemed like a
plausible hypothetical to explore how the puzzle pieces work together to
make the Internet Numbers Registry System. Also, I just want to fully
understand what Section 5 really means.
Thanks.
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: farmer(_at_)umn(_dot_)edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================