Subject: Re: [weirds] policy & tech (last one)

From: Bob Bruen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:17:10 -0400 (EDT)

Hi Don,

I agree with Andrew that this should stop now and this will be my last 
post on this topic, but I can't ignore what you've said.

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:50:23 -0400 Don Blumenthal wrote:

> First, for reasons that have been explored already, the suggestion that
> WEIRDS wouldn't be making a policy decision by excluding differential
> services capabilities is nonsense.

I assume this is aimed at me and not Andrew, but if you go back and read 
the emails, I never said that. If you find such a statement, feel free to 
send it to me directly.

> In fact, the statement that the capabilities will be used if feasible 
> under a new protocol supports that statement. You're asking WEIRDS to 
> prevent the community from implementing a capability that it wants based 
> on your view of the concept, not on whether a protocol can offer the 
> ability.

Really? The "community" is generally a subset, not 100%. I like to think I 
am part of the community as much as anyone else, unless disagreeing 
excludes me from the community.

There are lots of things people want, that they don't get and sometimes 
for good reason. If simply wanting something got it, life would be 
interesting. I was hoping for thoughtful.

All I ever asked was for such things to be considered carefully. The fact 
I am getting beaten up for suggesting it proves my point. Once the ball 
starts rolling, it does not get stopped or its path altered.

This project matters and will have consequences beyond just looking up a 
domain name information record.

          --bob

-- 
Dr. Robert Bruen
http://knujon.org
http://coldrain.net/bruen
+1.802.579.6288

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 17:25:00 -0400

i'm busy moving my household and generally ignoring work, however ...

to bob.

earlier someone employed by icann, if i understood him correctly,
tried to make the case that a mechanism allowing authentication and
services which scope the delivery of query responses, e.g., content,
rate, etc., ought not be included in the protocol. i tried to point
out that the absence of such a mechanism has scaling consequences as
there are order 10^^5, even 10^^6 query originators (aka "botnets")
whos intended use is to publish (to a set of recipients) substantial
subsets of the entire registration database for any particular zone.

registrants are generally opposed to this, and in the icann
contractual regime, registrars and registries are not obliged to
provide bulk access unconditionally -- as you know, and outside of
that private contractual set of data originators and managers, the
several public regulatory regimes contain at least one -- the eu -- in
which unconditional access is deprecated.

we seem to have gotten past that point in mechanism or policy with an
agreement that a mechanism allowing some form of response scoping will
be present in the protocol. if someone "turns it off", the 10^^N
problem is his or hers to enjoy.

so to respond on-list to bob, with whom i shared a naralo
participation in 2010/2011, existence of a mechanism is not a policy
decision. mechanism allow policy, singular and plural. absence of a
mechanism allowing data scoping is a data model of universality, as
anyone in the dns community is aware of -- restrictions on scope has
meaning.

i know this will gall, but in my view, no you are not a "part of the
community as much as anyone else" -- you are a data consumer, and with
a smaller set of interests than the data custodial interests,
motivated by private gain or a competing theory of public interest, of
registry operators and registrar operators and post-43-server and
post-43-client implementers, who are attempting still the difficult
task of agreeing to a specification.

-e