Subject: [Ietf-not43] IRIS Open Issues

From: stahura at enom.com (Paul Stahura)
Date: Fri Nov 14 13:38:22 2003

I agree, eNom does not make that info available
(over port-43) either at this time (but has via other channels to law
enforcement for example).

Alls I'm saying is that I can see: 
1) how it would be a good idea to have functionality already 
built-in to the spec which allowed someone to look
up the whois history (or other information) on a domain (or an IP address
too).
2) why such a policy (requiring the storage and disclosure of the info)
would be beneficial to law enforcement for example.

If it is left out wouldn't it constrain the policy makers to
not be able to make that policy?

Also, lets say there is no policy made by the policy makers.
What if a group of thin-registry-registrars/registries wanted to provide a
"domain title search" product for a fee (lets assume the've kept the info
over the years)?  
To enable them to do so, would then CRISP have to be modified at that time?
Or would they have to come up with an entirely different mechanism?
Why not stick it in now?

No biggie, just wondering.
Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Jaap Akkerhuis [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 6:50 PM
To: Marcos Sanz/Denic
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ietf-not43] IRIS Open Issues 

    > I believe ICANN requires the gaining registrar to obtain and store the
    > whois information it acquired before transfer, and also to store
    > all changes to the registrant name field.  Not 100% sure on this last
one,
    > but I know eNom keeps all changes.
    
    The registry I work for keeps *lots* of things, however doesn't make
them 
    available via 43

The same for mine, and not because ICANN wants it. Furthermore,
there are privacy regulation which disallow us to publish this data.
Most of the times it requires court orders.

Anyway, this all is policy. As I have always understand it, the
CRISP effort tries to be give to define a set of tools which can
be used under various different policy regimes.

	jaap
_______________________________________________
Ietf-not43 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43

---

From: andy at hxr.us (Andrew Newton)
Date: Sun Nov 16 10:11:48 2003

I hear you, but I think the apprehension is that not much is really 
known about requirements for such a feature, especially when it appears 
that nobody does this today.  That's not to say it won't be done, but 
perhaps a feature for version 2 when more deployment experience is 
available.

I'd like to point out that the current dreg spec does support this in 
the "classic" sense.  That is, there is explicit support for domain 
handles.  If a registry/registrar desired, they could point to instances 
of a domain-in-time with a domain handle in the seeAlso section of a 
domain looked up by domain name.

-andy

---

From: sanz at denic.de (Marcos Sanz/Denic)
Date: Thu Nov 20 11:29:12 2003

> "domain title search" product for a fee (lets assume the've kept the 
info

For me those are still hypothetical use cases and a vague motivation to 
make such kind of changes now. But this is just my opinion.

Regards,
Marcos