Re: [dns-privacy] privacy respect... ICANN!!
On 27 Jun 2015, at 14:26, Hosnieh Rafiee i...@rozanak.com wrote: but exposing such critical information to public is against privacy rights So get your local law enforcement and/or legislature to intervene. Please take your complaints there. If you want to join in the latest battle in this never-ending screaming contest at ICANN, be my guest. ICANN's policy-making machinery is open to everyone. It cannot be influenced by a discussion in an IETF WG. Debating whois, and in particular ICANN policy development on the topic, is not relevant to this WG. DNS != whois. IMO, the issues around ICANN's whois policies are intractable and will never converge on a consensus. There are two vocal and highly motivated constituencies who hold mutually exclusive positions. And speaking from personal experience, the intersection between ICANN's gTLD contract and national law can be a far from pleasant one. ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
[dns-privacy] privacy respect... ICANN!!
Hello, I received this note from my domain registrar that ICANN is going to expose the information of domain holder to whois requests. https://www.respectourprivacy.com/ Any comment? Best, Hosnieh ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
Re: [dns-privacy] privacy respect... ICANN!!
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 02:42:38PM +0200, Hosnieh Rafiee i...@rozanak.com wrote a message of 16 lines which said: Any comment? My personal opinion is that it is a bad move from ICANN (and illegal in European countries, where the european directive on personal data protection is more important than ICANN rules). So, european ccTLD won't follow it and I'm glad for it. But it is completely unrelated to this working group: whatever ICANN decides on this matter, the DNS will leak information (and we are here to limit this leak: let me remind you that qname minimisation is currently in Working Group Last Call in dnsop). ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
Re: [dns-privacy] privacy respect... ICANN!!
Having been at the abuse handling end of things, I'd be very glad to see the real domain holder exposed. Domains by proxy makes any abuse handling process much harder. You only see the case from one points of view. If you change your points of view and see it as an individual (not a company) who holds a domain, you might change your way of thinking. I've been in the position of an individual holding a domain (and having my details published in whois) for around 20 years. I still like having the details available. In any case, this is not relevant to qname minimization - which I am definitely in favor of. So I'll shut up about whois now. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
Re: [dns-privacy] privacy respect... ICANN!!
On Jun 27, 2015, at 6:21 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzme...@nic.fr wrote: But it is completely unrelated to this working group: whatever ICANN decides on this matter, the DNS will leak information (and we are here to limit this leak: let me remind you that qname minimisation is currently in Working Group Last Call in dnsop). +1. If you want to have a constructive discussion about this topic that has some chance of changing the outcome, you should probably do it in ICANN, not in an unrelated WG in the IETF. --Paul Hoffman ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
Re: [dns-privacy] privacy respect... ICANN!!
On Jun 27, 2015, at 9:42 AM, Hosnieh Rafiee i...@rozanak.com wrote: Hello, I received this note from my domain registrar that ICANN is going to expose the information of domain holder to whois requests. https://www.respectourprivacy.com/ Any comment? From an IETF perspective, WHOIS only relate to the old WHOIS port 43 specs and the to new RDAP specs, and none of those contain policy; what you are questioning is a possible policy decision, but that only belongs in the same venue where policy is developed. Rubens ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
Re: [dns-privacy] privacy respect... ICANN!!
But it is completely unrelated to this working group: whatever ICANN decides on this matter, the DNS will leak information (and we are here to limit this leak: let me remind you that qname minimisation is currently in Working Group Last Call in dnsop). +1. If you want to have a constructive discussion about this topic that has some chance of changing the outcome, you should probably do it in ICANN, not in an unrelated WG in the IETF. I agree about ICANN decision that not relates to this group but not about DNS privacy where directly relates to privacy of user . My note had two messages that ICANN decision only is a part of that but the important part of it is that what are the privacy concerns of data processing and/or information that are stored in a DNS server (with different RRtypes) At the moment this group only focused on (to some extend) the privacy of a particular end user (but not all as domain owners can be also an end user) . In other word, the privacy of DNS server and data that are stored in the DNS server. DNS is an IETF protocol. RRs are all defined at IETF. If some sensitive data are not stored in DNS server in a form of different RRtypes, then the decision of ICANN would not have any impact on users' privacy. Hosnieh BTW,I didn't follow the discussion on this qname minimization draft but if it is about minimizing data kept in DNS server, then that is a good start. ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
Re: [dns-privacy] privacy respect... ICANN!!
Just correcting a part of the sentence that the meaning was different. In other word, the privacy of DNS server and data that are stored in the DNS server are also important but at the moment this group did not focus on them. Especially when considering the NFV and a virtual DNS server, then... the DNS storage is prune to many privacy attacks. The following part is related to IANA, relation of whois database to DNS and ICANN So, sorry it was unrelated to this discussion here. ... then the decision of ICANN would not have any impact on users' privacy Best, Hosnieh ___ dns-privacy mailing list dns-privacy@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
