Subject: [Enum] Who Is?

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:15:51 +0000

Hi Folks,
    is it intended that there will be a Whois database associated with 
e164.arpa and the hierarchy underneath?

best regards,
   Lawrence
-- 
[email-masked]: +44 1794 833666::<my opinions>:

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:48:32 -0800

Lawrence,

Howdy, I don't think we've met. Forgive the laconic "whois" pun.

From the number of times FooCorp legal vetted Hill-bound ENUM policy stuff
with me ( n > 0 ) while I, ahem, enjoyed a mutually rewarding relationship
with FooCorp engineering management, specific to the issue of "whois" and
data protection, my guess is that the short answer to your question is "yes".

Who has the intent, which "whois" (:43, !43, other) query mechanism, what
the actual data repository is (a filofax is always a safe bet), and what if
any part of these fairly operational questions are in-scope for the IETF
ENUM WG is a WG consensus plus IESG consent question, and my crystal ball
is cracked.

Always being a fan of scope, and jurisdictionally scoped policies, I guess
finding out have the customary ENUM nuances.

Eric
wampumpeag, llc

---

From: Rob Freilich <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 09:54:33 -0600

Lawrence,

I would suggest you view some of the output from the ENUM Forum's Security &
Privacy Task group.

http://www.enum-forum.org/  (look at the contributions section)
http://www.enum-forum.org/documents/sec/SEC0011R0_Freilich_WHOIS_and_ENUM.do
c

At its Oct 23 meeting they discussed just this questions.  The results can
be summarized in three basic points agreed to by the Forum:

1. There is no current requirement for a Whois function in e164.arpa domain
2. There will be No Whois function provided in e164.arpa in order provide
privacy for ENUM registrants (customers) personal.
3. And if there was an operational/maintenance need for a Whois like
function then there would not be any Registrant data in the operational
protocol.

The main rationale for these decisions is to protect the privacy of
customers.  A Whois database would possibly match a customers phone number
to their name and possible address.  This association has serious privacy
implications for this service and was the driving force on the Forum's
recommendations.

Rob Freilich
972-729-5139

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	[email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]  On Behalf Of
Lawrence Conroy
Sent:	Monday, January 28, 2002 9:16 AM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	[Enum] Who Is?

Hi Folks,

best regards,
   Lawrence

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:46:32 -0500

> e164.arpa and the hierarchy underneath?

IMHO there is no requirement for a WHOIS database here since it resides 
under a domain and not at TLD ..should nation-states want one for their 
portion of the E.164 plan that is their business.

Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
45980 Center Oak Plaza   Bldg 8     Sterling, VA  20166
1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 314.503.0640,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto: [email-masked]> or
<mailto: [email-masked]>
<http://www.neustar.biz>
<http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 11:45:09 -0800

Morning Robert,

...
> implications for this service and was the driving force on the Forum's

These are all consistent with my recommendations at the time, though I've
no idea if I even waved the tail of the flea on the tail of the dog on ...
I circulated a obsolete-954 on the whois:43 mailing list around the time
of the MdR ICANN meeting.

Now that I think about it, Jim Reid, Clive Feather, Dan Wing, Dave Crocker,
myself, and some others were close to this (the gravamen or the rational of
the ENOREGISTRANTDATA design choice) in early November. See

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/enum/current/msg01291.html

In that item I mentioned

http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/dataprot/wpdocs/wp33en.htm

The policy expressed in that cite is EU-scoped. Not OECD- nor FTC-scoped.

Oblig other-hat waving:

The P3P Spec WG published An RDF Schema for P3P in on the 25th of January,
and any day thereafter the W3C will make another progress announcement
concerning the P3P Specification.

Eric

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 11:58:29 -0800

Sigh. A diaper call interrupted me. The point I intend to make was that
all the (personally pleasing) consensus towards a EU-esque no PII view
in "modern era" (post NSI monopoly) policy groveling, at least outside
of the scope of "trademark infringement", including in ENUM registries
and operational practice, was pre-911. The MdR ICANN meeting may have
scotched the easy striping of regsitrant data, at least where the two
fundamental directives (general and isdn) aren't controlling.

Eric