[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Why domain names are not like phone numbers (was Re: Some reg'n data I think necessary)

[Richard Leaning]

Thats normally the case - in the RIPE NCC region - they will only be in the database if they come to us direct for resources.  Otherwise its the responsibility of LIR/ISP to know who they give the IP address to.

But please remember that an end user, if we are talking further down the food chain ‘share' an IP address. Domains are owed by someone are they not?  - 

Richard Leaning
External Relations
RIPE NCC




> On 22 Mar 2016, at 18:53, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
> 
> But per the earlier email of Volker, "that may be the case at the high level or RIRs and their customers, but breaks down at the end customer level." [IP addresses]
> 
> It is my understanding that very few end users who are small businesses, home-based businesses, clubs, hobbyists, individuals would have their addresses in the ARIN or other RIR databases (or any other data for that matter). The larger blocks of IP numbers are listed, e.g., to large ISPs, but those ISPs, in turn, generally hold their end customer level private, particularly smaller parties.
> 
> Best,
> Kathy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/22/2016 2:24 PM, Greg Aaron wrote:
>> The analogy between domain names and IP addresses allocated by RIRs (and then SWIPed by those they were allocated to) is much stronger.
>> 
>> 
>> **********************************
>> Greg Aaron
>> Vice-President, Product Management
>> iThreat Cyber Group / Cybertoolbelt.com
>> mobile: +1.215.858.2257
>> **********************************
>> The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 2:14 PM
>> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Why domain names are not like phone numbers (was Re: Some reg'n data I think necessary)
>> 
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 06:32:06PM +0100, Volker Greimann wrote:
>>> So your argument is that as the domain name node may contain
>>> additional data, it should be treated completely different than a
>>> phone number or an IP address?
>> My argument is that the analogy between domain names on the one hand, and your personal phone number or the IP that you get from your ISP when you use DHCP on the other, is not very strong.  There are significant dissimilarities.  The most important (as I think some of us have already argued) are these:
>> 
>>     1.  A domain name is not (necessarily) an end point identifier,
>>     whereas a phone number and individual IP address both are.
>> 
>>     2.  A domain name (with the possible exception of an entry in the
>>     reverse tree, and even that is controversial) is optional for
>>     Internet connectivity, whereas neither an IP address nor a phone
>>     number is optional for connectivity to their respective networks.
>> 
>>     3.  Domain names are primarily used to offer services, more like
>>     IP address allocations from RIRs or phone-number block assignments
>>     under the number portability authorities.
>> 
>> So, "treated completely differently", no; but if we're going to use analogies to inform how we ought to think about this topic we really ought to find ones without such significant dissimilarities.  As ever with analogies, the more dissimilarities one can find that are relevant to the considerations at hand, the more the analogy breaks down.  I therefore think the analogy between domain names and phone numbers or end-user IP addresses is pretty weak.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> A
>> 
>> --
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2614 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160322/41fc5cd2/smime.p7s>