Re: [weirds] fyi: WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report

[Eric Brunner-Williams <[e-mail]>]

On 5/17/12 9:40 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 01:33:57AM -0000, John Levine wrote:
>> > This is a surprisingly good report.
> It's interesting you say that.  I had exactly the opposite reaction.

agree. and on just about every prior whois foodfight i've participated
in as a we-might-be-able-to-work-a-constructive-compromise participant.

turning to another claim ...

> ... I point out that privacy is mostly a matter of policy, and not standards...

there is data collection. the syntax and semantics are the subject of
specification(s).

there is data retention, data purposing, and data redistribution.
again, the syntax and semantics are the subject of specification(s).

there is data publication, access generally, ignoring the out-of-band
mechanism(s) above ("retention, purpose & redistribution"). again, the
syntax and semantics are the subject of specification(s).

> Hence, the discussion on privacy on this list will be limited.

persons who don't know what they are talking about will attempt to
limit the work of others to specify service primitives, arguing that a
primitive is a policy, and so out of scope.

i didn't bother to comment on ray's earlier observation that something
likely to be mechanism is mere policy, as among collaborative peers
the views will eventually be improved and shared.

here i bother as neither wendy nor patrick are, in my view,
technically competent contributors. least that seem to depreciate the
contributions of less technically competent contributors, i point out
that the not terribly useful binary valued "publish/don't-publish"
toggle to epp was added at the insistence of the then-current chair of
the ietf, who simply didn't understand the problem domain.

-e