RE: [registrars] .net thick/thin discussion
Folks, First let me express how impressed I have been at the erudition and effort that has gone into this exchange. Much of it was beyond me technically, but the overriding issues are clear. Clearly Marcus is correct that there are no unanimous position was expressed on the thick vs. thin issue. However, the exchange did seem to illuminate many points of agreement also. With that in mind, it seems that we may all agree on some objectives we want to obtain. Among them seem to be: 1. Protection of the registrant's personally identifiable information to the maximum extent possible and consistent with other legitimate needs for information; 2. Providing useful information to registrants and their authorized representatives concerning their registrations in a format that is most useable and most user friendly; 3. Reasonable access to law enforcement agencies for their legitimate needs, with control on that access to avoid, or at least minimize, abuse and to minimize the risk of unauthorized access; 4. Reasonable, but more restricted access to the intellectual property community for its legitimate needs, with control on that access to avoid abuse and to avoid the risk of unauthorized access, at least if they foot the bill for the cost of providing access system with all of its protections. Probably there are others, but these four at least seemed to be agreed to by all, or at least not argued by anyone. So we have a start. -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Larry Erlich Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 11:47 AM To: Jens Wagner Cc: registrars@dnso.org Subject: Re: [registrars] .net thick/thin discussion Jens Wagner wrote:
Larry Erlich schrieb:
Marcus Faure wrote:
As long as we do not have standardized whois output, a thin model is more difficult to deal with. I also think that the per-registrar thin model that Bruce proposed will cause this extra work, and honestly I do not believe that the average user understands it.
Can you explain what you mean by "honestly I do not believe that the average user understands it"?
What happened during the .ORG Transition? Didn't you receive many customer inquiries regarding the WHOIS? We sure did, as our customers were confused. We need to think more for the customer and to the benefit of the registrant himself instead of solely the registrar.
The confusion beneath the registrants was exactlly due to the thick+thin-whois! There were a lot of problems regarding registrar transfers due to one registrar being "thin" and the other "thick", which resulted in more support --> higher costs!
We didn't have that issue but I now understand your point.
A registration service provider can be handled with an optional maintainer field in the whois. We have one on the CORE whois that defaults to the member number, but can also contain a URL.
How are you going to translate the "optional maintainer field" in the registry whois output so that a registrant can understand who the reseller is? Are you going to ask the registry to lookup and display 2-3 lines of human readable information? And that they will agree to even make modification to add this field?
This should be proposed as an EPP extension anyway. At least one line of text per domain name should be usable for such purposes.
There would have to be at least two lines of text per domain. One for the registrar with full contact information and one for the reseller. But I am still in favor of a thin model. Keep in mind that our whole system is setup as a thick model and I would rather not have to have the expense of re-writing our whole system to accomodate this change. I don't think you can assume that this is trivial for many registrars. This will be expensive.
Will you also have the registry (if thick model) display the registrar in a human readable format? Or does the registrant have to do a further search with a code to find out, for example, who registrar "R33-LROR" is?
This is up to the registry. However there should be a webinterface that shows all informations 'pretty-printed'.
Doesn't handle the situation where another entity wants to query port 43 to display the information without creating their own routine to "pretty-print" the info. In other words it will only be nicely human readable if viewed through the registry web interface but not through another entities web interface. Larry Erlich http://www.DomainRegistry.com
Best regards,
Jens Wagner CTO Key-Systems GmbH
Key-Systems GmbH Prager Ring 4-12 66482 Zweibrücken Tel.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 50 Fax.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 51 Email: support@rrpproxy.net
www.key-systems.net www.domaindiscount24.com www.RRPproxy.net www.Key-Fashion.de
Larry Erlich
Yours, Marcus
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc. 215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Let me be the first to welcome you to the melee! On 29/07/2004 9:15 AM Mitchell, Champ noted that; | Probably there are others, but these four at least seemed to be agreed to by all, or at least not argued by anyone. Equating silence with consensus is *never* a good idea in this environment. I guarantee you've just incited the weary to disagree in whole or in part with all four of your statements :) - -- ~ -rwr ~ "Every contrivance of man, every tool, every instrument, ~ every utensil, every article designed for use, of each ~ and every kind, evolved from very simple beginnings." ~ - Robert Collier Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com My Blogware: http://www.byte.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP) iD8DBQFBCPo16sL06XjirooRAju4AJ0R79FnH1ir44otI7EdxaJdawZ3DQCfbmze 0mMxmxtI3ndIEkh/rWqRjiw= =XDP6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
1. Protection of the registrant's personally identifiable information to the maximum extent possible and consistent with other legitimate needs for information;
There are no "other legitimate needs". There are lobbies within ICANN. Outside of ICANN, in the pre-ICANN and the operational net community, two of those lobbies, "intellectual property" and "law enforcement" are broadly considered illegitimate. See Leslie Daigle's rework of rfc954 that just ended IETF-wide LC on 6/30 on the first of those two lobbies. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-daigle-rfc954bis-01.txt You can also find a discussion here: ftp://nic-naa.net/pub/draft-brunner-rfc954-obsolete-00.txt originally published here: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-brunner-rfc954-historic-00.txt See the IAB's summary of the consensus of the RAVEN list on the second of those two lobbies. While that statement is specific to intercept, and policy neutral, the requirement for a pervasive access mechanism to some network critical database(s) with access and management plane issues so similar to the MEGACO problem, the technical consensus seems to me to be predictable. When "warrentless" and "free speech" are added in at least one jurisdiction, the policy complications are evident. See: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2804.txt?number=2804 Welcome to the War of the Lobbies. Eric
Hello All: I thought the following article regarding .GOV registration prices might be of on interest, see http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2004/0726/web-dotgov-07-29-04.asp. One of ICANN's greatest successes which I am constantly reminded of is the costs savings that the competitive registrar marketplace have introduced as well as the wide range of new service offerings. Federal rules which allow GSA officials to assess the fee set the upward limit at $1,000 for registration and $500 for renewal. "$125 to support the overall registration process is actually very reasonable," said Keith Thurston, assistant deputy associate administrator in GSA's Office of Electronic Government and Technology. Best regards, Michael
Bob, Jean-Michel, or any other Japanese Registrar: I read this article today about recent actions by the Japanese government to increase privacy protection of individuals, see http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20040730wo32.htm. Although this does not appear to be on all fours with the current privacy debate regarding the Whois data, I do think it is something relevant that might be useful to track. Can anyone Japanese registrars provide any additional information on this proposed legislation and how it could impact your business operations. Best regards, Michael D. Palage
Hi Michael: I cut out that article for our staff. The Yomiuri is an excellent source of information. Every Tuesday we have a CyberWorld section to enjoy. Mieko Umezu recently completed a course here in Japan put on by the "Japan Privacy Consultant Association" which is a branch of the "US Privacy Consultant Association." She was the only registrar here to attend/complete the course. Also, your friends at JPRS (.jp registry) my wish add some information. Personal regards, Duane Connelly At 23:22 02/08/04, Michael D. Palage wrote:
Bob, Jean-Michel, or any other Japanese Registrar:
I read this article today about recent actions by the Japanese government to increase privacy protection of individuals, see http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20040730wo32.htm. Although this does not appear to be on all fours with the current privacy debate regarding the Whois data, I do think it is something relevant that might be useful to track.
Can anyone Japanese registrars provide any additional information on this proposed legislation and how it could impact your business operations.
Best regards,
Michael D. Palage
participants (5)
-
Duane Connelly -
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine -
Michael D. Palage -
Mitchell, Champ -
Ross Wm. Rader