On Thu, 27 May 1999 11:36:22 +1200, Peter Mott wrote:

...

I'd say that ISOCNZ did consult industry and are in the process of doing so. Some weeks ago the ISOCNZ technical committee, John Vorstermans, Mark Davies and Roger De Salis talked to Joe Abley and myself. If they didn't talk with Peter that doesn't mean they didn't talk with industry.

We have a different view on what consultation is.

FWIW in hindsight I believe there would have been merit in posting something on say nznog asking for feedback. Perhaps one of the things we can look at is"recognising" nznog as something which should form part of a consultation process on relevant issues. Of course nznog may not want this and might prefer say isocnz-l or isocnz-announce is used for all consultations on these sort of issues. I'll forward this post to nznog (not cross-post) for their interest. But having recognised consultation could be better, let me say nothing is cast in stone. ISOCNZ Council agreed to stop the situation where anyone at all could do zone transfers, but also recognised that certain people or groups would have legitimate grounds for access. Now that leaves enough flexibility to have a very liberal or very tight "access" policy. You have most of the ISOCNZ Technical Cmte on this list and I'm sure that if there is a widespread consensus on what is desirable, agreement can be reached. A point I'll make is ISOCNZ does have some obligations in terms of legal responsibilities as "custodian" which have to be considered.

...

I have since been seconded onto ISOCNZ council to fill the vacancy left by Peter Mott's resignation and am now on that committee. The tech committee have the task of looking at closing of the zone transfer holes. This is not cast in stone and could be changed if valid reasons can be produced.

David Farrer said a decision had already been made to disallow XFRS. Can we get the story straight please?

The decision was to stop anyone at all doing transfers. I don't think there is much disagreement that an open slather let anyone grab it and possibly spam with it scenario is desirable to continue. It was recognised some people would still have a need to do transfers. As for how stringent or liberal the policy is, could I pose a number of policy scenarios which may help people focus on what they consider desirable. Now I am not great on all the technical side so I hope I have captured this correctly. a) Status Quo - where anyone at all can do a transfer with no restriction b) No automatic transfers are possible but any *.nz name holder can ask for a zone transfer as long as they promise not to spam. Of course they may give it to others who do with no way to check this. c) Any NZ ISP (and how do we define that) may get a copy of the zone data. Perhaps with an agreement not to spam, on sell etc d) No automatic right of access but any person or group can ask for access, specifying the intended purpose of the data. DOMAINZ to decide which requests are accepted based on criteria set by ISOCNZ (which could come from this group). Note any info about why it is wanted which is given to DOMAINZ would be confidential and not to be publicised e) No access at all except to secondaries (ie those who *need* rather than *want* it Now I'm sure there are many more combinations but hopefully that gets much of it. Feedback on which option is desirable is welcome. Someone raised why ISOCNZ is involved at all. Well simply ISOCNZ has the *duty* on behalf of the Internet Community to be the custodian (for lack of a better word) of the *.nz DNS and associated data. As part of that role it does need to consider implications of what it does with the data. We do have a Privacy Act which few other countries have and we do need to be careful that if ever challenged on what our policies are to do with data we have collected, we can demonstrate that issues have been thought through in a considered manner. I realise the zone data itself may not be relevant to the privacy act, but that it *unlocks* other data may be an issue. Who knows at some stage we may have to spend some money on a legal opinion on our obligations. Speaking for me personally I have no firm view on how liberal or stringent access to the zone files should be (except I strongly support removing open slather access) and am inclined to be supportive of any consensus position reached by a group representative of the industry. DPF --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog