On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 04:16:04PM +0200, Niels ten Oever wrote: > The difference between NAT and 3rd party verification is that there was > a significant demand for the former, and not for the latter.
It seems to me that the WG is a place where a bunch of people who work on registries and registrars get together to talk about things that are useful to them, and you are asserting the non-existence of demand by the non-use of this not yet existing standard. As John points out, there are other possible interpretations open. > Does this mean that the only possible impact of a human rights review > could be recognition in an RFC ? No, but when there are reasonable trade offs among different rights it would be quite inappropriate to attempt to suppress standardization because the review comes down entirely in favour of certain rights. This is _especially_ true in the current case, since the human rights review is not actually part of IETF process but is instead an experiment to see how useful they are. I think the jury is out on that, so far, and efforts like this to suppress standarization efforts on the basis of a preference for certain rights is not that encouraging for the process. This is, after all, a registry protocol. For the land registry in Ontario, I need not only to show up, but actually to show government-issued ID. This is because of fraud that happened in land titles in Ontario some years ago. I trust there is little disagreement with the proposition that fraud involving some domain names has happened. Some registries might attempt to solve that through stronger identification of owner requirements. Whether it would work, I don't know, but that's supposed to be what a competitive market in domain names (and the resulting reputational effects) is supposed to get us. > You seem to be arguing a technological deterministic standpoint here > along the lines of 'everything that is technically possible will happen > anyway, so its better to do it in an interoperable way'. I am not. But we know that there are _current_ things that do some kind of verification in _non_-interoperable ways, and so I fail to see the value in putting fingers in our ears and shouting, "I can't hear you," in response. The IETF is not a human rights advocacy organization, and I do not think it should become one. > By standardizing certain solutions, and not standardizing others, we > change the development and uptake of technologies, especially if > there is not a large demand or an established practice. If there is a demand for a thing that is satisfied by multiple, different established practices, that _too_ is an outcome -- one I think is less desirable for the interoperation of the global Internet. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
