Re: [Uwho] Re: draft-campbell-whois-00.txt

Allen,

When I proposed to co-chair (with David Crocker) the -51 whoisfix bof, 
there were certain problems I didn't want to repeat:

	o the daft "technical" contributions by persons utterly unqualified
	  to fix even the simplest of :43 problems, let alone the really
	  hard problems,
	o the "well-known crank" problem (Jeff Williams, Jim Flemming, etc.),
	o mission creep into the PROVREG WG area of responsibility, 
and
	o mission creep into the eventual !43 area of responsibility.

To achieve the second item I asked Paul Hoffman to put in place this policy
	...
	The same (prior approval w.r.t. Jeff Williams) applies to other
	well-known cranks, who must obtain permission from a co-chair
	before being allowed to write directly to the list, e.g., Flemming
	...

In your zeal to advance your point of view, you've introduced cross-talk
from "un-policed" lists which fail to meet two, and possibly all, of these
criteria.

In your response to my note you correct my distinction that the nsi/vgrs
uwho list is not relevant to the purposes of the ietf-whois/whoisfix/:43
list. If this list progresses to a charter, and I think it can, it will
be by the consensus of its contributors, not other parties.

You also correct my distinction that some other lists are not "whois"
lists. You appear to make this correction based upon the purpose of those
other lists, and without reference to the minutes of the -51 meeting, which
are on-line, or the archives of this list, which are also on-line.

You do make the very case I attempt to characterize in my draft, that the
protocol is subject to arbitrary repurposing by parties, whether those who
use the protocol to originate UCE to the registrants associated with some
servers, to verify trademark claims by registrants associated with some
servers (civil law enforcement), to assist criminal law enforcement, and
now to suppress UCE.

My analysis of 954 and its anticeedents differs from yours. That I know the
authors of 954 and its anticeedents plays an important part in my analysis.

The scope of 2050 is for one, of two or more, types of registries. The scope
of 954 is for another of the two or more types.

Accuracy is more important than desire.

You also reject the utility of reference to the jurisdictional scope, policy,
and machanism requirements of the European Union Data Protection Directives.
The jurisdictional rejection of EU DP Directives, and OECD guidelines, is a
common feature in US business that are favored by the lower standards of an
"opt-out" legal regime. It is also a common feature of "early adopters" who
agrue that the internet and its services are "sui generis" and outside the
rational scope of territorial-based jurisdiction public policies.

I have to stop here, as I've got a more important demand on my time, who is
three.

The question is, should you be writing to this list at all?

Eric