Re: Request to Move RFC 954 to Historic Status

Derek J. Balling wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, April 23, 2003, at 04:03 PM, Bill Weinman wrote:
> 
>> At 01:04 PM 4/23/2003, Derek J. Balling wrote:
>>
>>> Without attempting to drag out this discussion *too* long, I would 
>>> say that it's entirely possible for jurisdictions to legislate 
>>> various stupid things, and it isn't necessarily the role of the net 
>>> "at large" to be accepting of silly policies just because some 
>>> countries have them as legislated mandates.
>>
>>
>> Typical flame-bait -- "don't want to drag out the discussion" ... and 
>> ... "your policies are stupid and silly".
>>
>> With dialog like that, no wonder there's no workable policy.
> 
> 
> That Chileans (in the real-world example given) cannot include certain 
> information on the WHOIS record does *not* mean by default that 
> including it in WHOIS is "bad", and when writing a new policy document, 
> that document should not consider it bad just because XX% of the 
> countries have laws forbidding it.
> 

i just want to clarify that the local policy was taken in a
process of analyzing the policies of the rest of cctlds, the
recomendations of icann, and discussions in other mailing lists.

anyway, my principal concern in this mail list was to ask and
promote for a critical update on rfc 954... that respects the
"privacy concerns" that the community itself is waiting to,
in this days.


hugo