[Ietf-not43] -02 requirements draft

[Paul Stahura]

This will cost money to develop.
Who will the development costs be passed to?
Unless something changes,
I find it interesting that the costs will be passed to the people supplying
the information (registrants in the form of higher registration fees) 
not to the people requesting and using it for fun and profit.
It would probably be cheaper (not just dollars but cpu cycles)
 for registrars/registries to just give
their information to a single "law enforcement", 
say daily via an FTPed XML file, than to implement 
and maintain a complex distributed query scheme.
IPR community would then just ask law enforcement to run their queries.


Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 4:04 PM
To: Leslie Daigle
Cc: fausett@lextext.com; ietf-not43@lists.verisignlabs.com
Subject: Re: [Ietf-not43] -02 requirements draft 



Leslie,

> As for the "all domains owned by Joe Example", we've heard this
> requirement from both IPR and law enforcement communities.

at issue is that this same style of query is exactly what direct marketeers
want too. while i have herd from the IPR community I don't see them
offering to fund the development and deployment of such services.

though we may have some actors that desire these services I see no reason
to offer them for free. This is why I have proposed a requirement for
settlements.

I also can't see how we can tell the diference between an authorized user
that is a Direct Marketer and one that is from law enforcement.


best,

-rick


_______________________________________________
Ietf-not43 mailing list
Ietf-not43@lists.verisignlabs.com
http://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43