On 23/01/19 6:25 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote: > [...] > In this draft, there are no privacy considerations, and the report that is > being cited to legitimize this approach has not been adopted by ICANN the > organization or the community and was very controversial at the time of > publication. The report is being miscited as being produced by ICANN itself, > which was not the case. > [...]
I agree with Niels: * Since the document starts with outlining privacy concerns as being of primary import and relevance to the discussion around reverse search, the document would naturally benefit from adding privacy considerations. * The reference to a ICANN WG's recommendations as "... ICANN itself, in its report about Next-Gen Registration Directory Service (RDS) ..." is also problematic. Thank you. Gurshabad
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
