[Ietf-not43] -02 requirements draft

[Paul Stahura]

Ted,
I see what you are saying, but I'd also like to point
out that we (registrars) are already required to give the information
(which I might add is completely and already public information)
in bulk to whoever requests it.  What I suggested
is nothing different, except instead of charging the "law enforcment" 
$10K we charge $0K and make it easy for them to parse the info.
I am also no a lawyer, but the concerns you site 
don't seem to apply in this case IMO.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Hardie [mailto:Ted.Hardie@nominum.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 2:22 PM
To: stahura@enom.com
Cc: ietf-not43@lists.verisignlabs.com
Subject: Re: [Ietf-not43] -02 requirements draft


> 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

Paul,
	I am not a lawyer, and I do not play one on the net.  I would
suggest, however, that you might want to ask one about the wisdom of
the approach you suggest.  Over the course of years, different
jurisdictions have built up quite a bit of case law which relates to
privacy and the limitations to discovery (in civil cases) and
investigative search (in criminal cases).  These might well
have an effect on the workability of your suggestion.
	To repeat, I am not a lawyer; I am merely suggesting you
might want to consult one.
			regards,
				Ted Hardie