Re: [DNSOP] whois: the protocol that can't be killed even though it must

Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Sun, 21 November 2010 23:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 133E93A6AB4 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:16:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.69
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.69 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id teFrpe5edzSH for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:16:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from abenaki.wabanaki.net (abenaki.wabanaki.net [65.99.1.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D56D73A6810 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:16:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from limpet.local (cpe-67-255-5-237.twcny.res.rr.com [67.255.5.237]) by abenaki.wabanaki.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oALLr0tr078510 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 16:53:00 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net)
Message-ID: <4CE9A881.9000006@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 18:17:21 -0500
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>
Organization: wampumpeag
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <4ce93a4b3be59@circleid.com> <41856.1290360792@nsa.vix.com> <20101121174157.GA13950@shinkuro.com> <F9A9B3B6-934F-48EC-8CCA-3F32A77D0760@insensate.co.uk> <C8475C54-8EAF-48F4-B941-998FF94E9389@shinkuro.com> <9F6A0D8D-95AF-4494-9BAB-E836377F6C8F@frobbit.se> <68E21DFE-A5BF-46C9-BD5C-A211E4093795@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <68E21DFE-A5BF-46C9-BD5C-A211E4093795@rfc1035.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] whois: the protocol that can't be killed even though it must
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:16:34 -0000

I wrote a 954 to historic ID a long time ago. Bob Braden didn't think 
much of the idea, and the caste system being what it was, and is, that 
kept 954 alive until Leslie took a swing at it.

And of course, it is alive and doing fine, or at least undead and 
eating brains, today and for the foreseeable future.

There has been little movement in the GNSO for most of a decade on the 
issue. The Law and Order people can't be informed that there are 
better approaches than the assumption that every registrant, new and 
old, is a pedophile or Islamo-Communist. The IP people can't be 
informed similarly, that every registrant, new and old, is a pedophile 
and a trademark infringer. Registrars, Registries, and neither of the 
above people can't bring themselves to agree that the presumption of 
universal criminal or tortuous use is correct.

> Or what they're compelled to implement. In theory ICANN could get
> every gTLD to use IRIS overnight by the stroke of a pen.

Well, that theory would require ICANN to dump the "public-private, 
bottom-up, multi-stakeholder" model for a streamlined authoritarian model.

Some people like streamlined authoritarian models. The PRC has 
pervasive interposition. The USA has pervasive intercept. I think the 
value claims of both are overstated.

Mind, the WHOIS drama plays only in the CNOBI theaters. In .coop and 
.museum and .cat and any registry with a non-trivial admission policy 
the issue is moot.

Eric