Re: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft outcomes report v 1.6

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Scoville, Adam wrote:
> I think it's only fair for the engineers
> to explain your issues in non-technical terms, an not to assert that
> only an engineer is qualified to comment.

Thankfully, I'm neither a lawyer nor an engineer - I'm simply pushing 
back on the assertion that implementing out-of-band verification would 
be "easy".

There is nothing simple about the domain registration system, the DNS or 
its policy and regulatory overlays. In a nutshell, we have built a 
registration system that takes input from a variety of sources - 
telephone, email, fax, API, web, etc. and converts them, through a 
variety of means, to an EPP XML expression which gets transmitted to the 
registries. Every superimposition must work within this context. Simply 
picking an implementation (offline verification) and a protocol (email) 
doesn't complete the work. In fact, doing so is the ultimate in bad 
manners when it comes to developing policy & regulation. The 
registration system works because we have settled on a loose collection 
of core standards (EPP and DNS mostly) that are easily coupled with 
non-specified systems that work at the edge. This policy recommendation 
reduces the number of implementation options at the edge, which has the 
implication of drastically increasing the complexity of the implementation.

Imagine if the banking industry were only able to verify account holder 
identity using smoke signals. This is precisely the parallel that has 
been proposed.

> n a basic level, it seems like we're in agreement: that as it stands,
> whatever benefits come from the OPoC proposal aren't worth their
> detriment, or as you put it, "major cockup" (whether it be to
> accountability on the Internet, or in terms of implementation
> difficulties for registrars). I'm sure you don't see David or me as
> prime advocates of the OPoC proposal. 

The OPOC proposal, and the work product of this WG are two very 
different things. I am proud of my contribution to the former, and 
extremely happy that you and David, amongst others, and not I, are 
viewed as the primary advocates of the latter.

The core OPOC proposal continues to have merit, and an extremely strong 
base of support throughout the community. The encumbrances that the IP 
community have layered over it throughout this working group do not. 
Happily, I believe that there continues to be an opportunity for the 
supporters of the core OPOC proposal to work with the law enforcement 
community to ensure that the OPOC proposal is implemented in a 
responsible and effective manner without the excessive encumbrances that 
have been put forward by this WG.


--
Regards,

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
Tucows Inc.

http://www.domaindirect.com
t. 416.538.5492