RE: ENUM trials in general

["Stastny Richard" <]

IMHO section 9.5 reads a bit different:

..any ContactInfo or WHOS-like service .. shall not publicly disclose
the personal
information of individual ENUM Registrants. .. nevertheless .. be useful
to deliver message 
about problems with ENUM to the Registrant or technical contact ...

This there will be an WHOIS (or WHOSIS-like) capability.

I Austria we are aware of this problems, but have decided to have a
WHOIS with
contact info and in addition for the TRIAL period also to add the desc
of the
domain name holder. One reason is, that the validation (again for the
trial) 
currently is done by the public phone book and the info there is exactly
(by definition)
the same as in WHOIS.

Anyway, it has not been decided yet if the information will later (after
the trial)
be removed, hidden or left in. If the are removed, we will have excactly
the
same info as proposed in US Forum 6000, namely admin-c, tech-c, zone-c
and nameservers.

Regarding Tier 0, it was never proposed to have the pointers in Tier 0
the SRV record are in Tier 1.

regards
Richard


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin McCandless [
	    
	    
] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:34 PM
> To: 'Jim Reid'; Stastny Richard
> Cc: Sabine Dolderer/Denic; Michael Haberler; 
> axel.pawlik@localhost carsten@localhost 
> daniel.karrenberg@localhost enum-trials@localhost 
> marco.bernardi@localhost richard@localhost
> Subject: RE: ENUM trials in general 
> 
> 
> During the US ENUM forum discussions we spent a considerable 
> amount of time on the issue of whois.  It was agreed that a 
> whois like process for ENUM would not be acceptable in 
> today's privacy concerns.  The details of the recommendation 
> starts at section 9.5.  Also, by providing a whois at the 
> tier 0 completely undermines the sovereign decisions of each 
> nation on how to handle personal identifiable information.
> 
> Kevin.....
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Reid [
	    
	    
]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:15 AM
> > To: Stastny Richard
> > Cc: Sabine Dolderer/Denic; Michael Haberler; axel.pawlik@localhost 
> > carsten@localhost daniel.karrenberg@localhost enum-trials@localhost 
> > marco.bernardi@localhost richard@localhost
> > Subject: Re: ENUM trials in general
> > 
> > 
> > I am not convinced of the need for whois (either in general or for 
> > ENUM in particular). There is general consensus within the UK ENUM 
> > Group that a whois functionality is neither necessary nor 
> desirable. I 
> > suppose this could change in light of experience gained during the 
> > trial.
> > 
> > For ENUM, I think that ultimately DNS hosting will be done by the 
> > telco or equivalent entity that's responsible for some 
> number block. 
> > If that's true, this entity can be the initial point of contact for 
> > any DNS technical issues which crop up. I wonder how often 
> whois gets 
> > genuinely used for that purpose today? And for ENUM, there will be 
> > cases where people will want to register a domain and NOT 
> have a whois 
> > entry at all: an unlisted phone number perhaps. I believe that some 
> > regulators can get uptight about providing a reverse lookup 
> capability 
> > on telephone numbers.
> > 
> 
>