[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: newIANA (was Fram behind closed doors via opaque channels)
- To: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@CaveBear.com>, <Synthesis@travel-net.com>
- Subject: Re: newIANA (was Fram behind closed doors via opaque channels)
- From: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@unety.net>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 11:54:47 -0500
- Cc: "Masataka Ohta" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Brian E Carpenter" <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <Iana@iana.org>, <List@giaw.org>
- Reply-To: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@unety.net>
From: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
To: Synthesis@travel-net.com <Synthesis@travel-net.com>
Cc: Masataka Ohta <email@example.com>; Brian E Carpenter
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
Iana@iana.org <Iana@iana.org>; List@giaw.org <List@giaw.org>
Date: Monday, July 13, 1998 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: newIANA (was Fram behind closed doors via opaque channels)
>> Like it or not, (see Karl Auerbach's analysis at
>> http://www.cavebear.com/nsf-dns/ ) has given credence to the
>> notion that the .com database is proprietary information.
>Before that gets taken out of context -- What those web pages discuss (as
>does my submission to the Green Paper) is the fact that in response to
>claims under both the US Privacy Act (5 USC 552a) and the Freedom of
>Information Act (5 USC 552) regarding the domain name database (i.e. what
>we think of as the whois database, apart from the raw .com/.net/.edu/...
>TLD zone files).
>The reason that NSF rejected the claims is that NSF asserts that it has no
>control over this information, that instead, that database is the sole and
>exclusive private property of Network Solutions.
>In other words, NSF has put its foot into things and made a royal mess by
>establishing a precedent that NSI owns the contact database. Some have
>said that this may not create an estoppel because the person who answered
>the PA and FOIA claims had not right to bind the agency and USG in other
>areas. But it certainly does create an obstacle to implementation of the
>There is, of course, a similar problem in that at the instant the US
>government manages to compel NSI to disgorge the database, the data in
>that database will clearly be subject to the privacy act which
>specifically disallows transfers of databases containing personally
>identifiable information to non-governmental agencies (absent a contract
>imposing privacy constraints) without specific Congressional
How was it transferred to ARIN ?
I believe that ARIN is "non-governmental" ?
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com