Re: [ga] scammers using whois privacy

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't have a problem with the dmv concept as long as the average user can access the information. Yes one record at a time is sufficient.

It's funny that it's being advocated that domain holders have a rigjht to priivacy, but anyone requesting information would have to disclose all that info that Karl suggested.

So the domainer has the right to privacy, but the requester of info does not?

Karl that sounds more like something ICANN would consider rather than you. They use double standards all the time. You usually don't.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.articlecontentprovider.com

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Hugh Dierker 
  To: Roberto Gaetano ; 'Karl Auerbach' ; 'kidsearch' 
  Cc: 'Dena Whitebirch' ; 'ga' 
  Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 9:07 AM
  Subject: RE: [ga] scammers using whois privacy


  This is not first for data control. Look at the model used by DMV of California. The data base is closed to the "general" public. But procedures are in place for someone with a real need to access the information. But only one a time. 
  I do not believe spammers have the time or cost effectivenes to justify getting ones' indenty one at a time and declaring under penalty of perjury a legitimate need.
  (this of course has different criteria for law enforcement.)

  Karl is right on the money here and we have over a decade to prove it.
  Why would such intellent engineer folk want to reinvent the wheel.

  e

  Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    Karl Auerbach wrote:

    > 
    > And one of the curative measures that seems to constantly 
    > escape the minds of ICANN is that *before* any person should 
    > be allowed to examine whois information that person ought to 
    > be required to declare, in writing, into a permanent and 
    > public archive the following things:

    [snip]


    I have always problems with statements like "ICANN does not understand" or
    the like.
    Sure, some people in the ICANN Board or staff or community might be in that
    situation, maybe others do understand but cannot change the situation,
    others do understand, but disagree, and so on with a variety of approaches
    and behaviours that is, IMHO, one of the richness of this environment.

    This said, I would like to state what is *not* the opinion of ICANN, or at
    least not necessarily, but is *my* opinion.

    The matter is extremely complex and far from having one single simple
    solution, as the exchange btw. Chris and Karl has shown. For me, the real
    problem, besides the fact that there are different opinions and interests
    (which is part of the given landscape, and a constraint that cannot be
    changed), is the fact that we are trying to use the WhoIs for different
    things, that are only loosely connected with the purpose for which the
    system was designed.

    Karl, or anybody who has a longer experience than myself with the subject,
    are welcome to correct me if I am wrong, but the initial purpose of the
    WhoIs, and its importance for security and stability matters, is to be able
    to identify an entity that can respond if there is a problem with the
    corresponding resource (name or address). This does not imply in any way
    identification of the owner of the resource, quite the contrary, in the vast
    majority of the cases this is an agent with some kind of authority delegated
    by the owner. While I agree that the ultimate responsibility stays with the
    owner, there is no need to identify the owner in an emergency situation.

    May I use an example. Suppose I own a domain name, and suppose that I use
    some kind of hosting services for the website. Suppose that my domain name
    is used as a relay by a spammer or scammer for his/her activities. It would
    not do any good to contact me, because in my ignorance of the internet
    technology I would barely understand what they are talking about, ;et alone
    to be able to do something to cure the problem. The fact is that, under the
    assumptions above, I pay a provider for a service, and if anybody can
    intervene, it is the technical staff of the provider, not me.

    This for what I understand to be the original purpose of the WhoIs. Another
    aspect is to identify, once the emergency has been fixed by the technical
    staff, the responsible party who has to pay for the damages, so to speak.
    This is a completely different ball game,and although we could use the WhoIs
    for storing this kind of information, I personally continue to fail to see
    any reason for having this information publicly available.

    The problem raised by Chris is a legitimate, but complex one. I don't think
    that it would be an appropriate use of the WhoIs to be a repository for
    information that have to do with the contents of a web site. The problem of
    being able to trust a web site is (again IMHO, not necessarily in the
    Board's opinion) something that is related to the trade or other activity
    performed on the web site. In simple words, there is the case of the
    ecommerce site that claims to sell goods that will never be delivered, but
    also the site who gives false information making believe they are an
    important news agency, or a fake university that claims to give degrees, or
    whatever. I am absolutely convinced that it is the trade organization that
    should react to put measures in place as safeguards to the consumers, in
    exactly the same way we do have brand protections, guaranteed origin marks
    for producers, quality labels, and so on. In short, since illegal activities
    do damage the honest traders, the community of the trade has to put in place
    measures to protect the traders (and the consumers).

    I don't know if we are going to see certificates on websites that guarantee
    the contents of the website from the ecommerce point of view, but I do
    believe that bodies like the ICC should be looking at this, and that this
    solution is more appropriate than to bend the WhoIs system to do something
    that it was not designed to do, and also oblige the customers to do searches
    for which they might be not technically skilled for rather than being
    prompted with some visible sign that will give them the sufficient
    confidence that the site can be trusted.

    Roberto
    (in my personal capacity)




  __________________________________________________
  Do You Yahoo!?
  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
  http://mail.yahoo.com