RE: [tf2-sg2] Registrant consent
Attached please find a revised version of the paragraphs on registrant consent. This has a more detailed summary of the staff survey results, which are, however, somewhat questionable (not clear what the distinction is among the categories it recognizes). Please let me know if any questions/concerns. Steve Metalitz -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 4:09 PM To: Tim Ruiz Cc: tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [tf2-sg2] Proxy services overview Thanks. The update version of the text -- as agreed earlier -- is at the following URL: http://does-not-exist.org/proxies.html On 2004-04-05 14:04:18 -0500, Tim Ruiz wrote: > From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To: 'Tim Ruiz' <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, > 'Thomas Roessler' <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 14:04:18 -0500 > Subject: RE: [tf2-sg2] Proxy services overview > X-Spam-Level: > > Thomas, > > Sorry this took longer than I had expected. I did receive a response > from Domains by Proxy that you can use in the report. It is as follows: > > --QUOTE-- > Domains By Proxy spends a great deal of time investigating every > complaint and obtaining substantiation of wrongdoing from the > complaining party before taking action against a customer. We hear > both the complainant's and the customer's versions of the story, and > if action is warranted, strongly encourage both parties to resolve the > situation. Obviously, each situation is unique and not every situation > fits into the investigative process set forth above. For example, in > situations of egregious behavior by a customer, such as trademark and > copyright infringement about which there can be no question, or engaging in spamming, we cancel our service immediately. > On the other hand, when the complaint is truly lacking in substance we > do not even bother the customer. There have been numerous situations > where Domains By Proxy has not cancelled its service because such > action simply was not warranted. > > With respect to the WalMart matter, Domains By Proxy followed its > investigative framework. Several discussions were had between Domains > By Proxy and its customer, before the decision was made to terminate > its privacy service, which was in accordance with the terms and > conditions set forth in the Domain Name Proxy Agreement. As to the > details of what transpired, Domains By Proxy declines to elaborate as > this matter could still be the subject of litigation and also to > preserve the confidentiality of the conversations that took place. > > Domains by Proxy, Inc. > --UNQUOTE-- > > Thanks, > Tim > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:16 PM > To: 'Thomas Roessler' > Cc: tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [tf2-sg2] Proxy services overview > > Thanks Tom. I'll contact them yet this evening and try to have > something for you by tomorrow. > > Tim > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Roessler > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 4:54 PM > To: Tim Ruiz > Cc: tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [tf2-sg2] Proxy services overview > > On 2004-03-29 16:10:35 -0600, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > > At the very least, remove the paragraph that starts with "There is > > anecdotal evidence about Go Daddy's practices from the re-code.com > > incident..." and the associated links (including Wendy's blog link) > > UNLESS you make a specific attempt to contact Domains by Proxy, Inc. > > to respond AND include that response, whatever it is, in full in > > this report. > > Referencing one side and including the other side's response verbatim > isn't precisely balanced... I'd suggest we move the incident outside > the actual table, with language like this: > > There is little anecdotal evidence available on actual > experiences made with proxy and similar services. One > incident which has received some attention is the > <a>re-code.com</a> incident. The domain name had been > registered using Domains By Proxy; pseudonymity of the > registrant was lifted upon receipt of a <a>cease and desist > letter</a> from Wal-Mart. <a>Discussion in Wendy Seltzer's > web log</a>; <a>discussion on nettime-l</a>; <a>response > from Domains By Proxy</a>. > > "response from Domains By Proxy" would be a link to a statement from > domains by proxy. (If the statement of the basic facts isn't > accurate, then that can and should of course be fixed in the main > document.) > > > BTW, it is DBP practices you are referring to here, not Go Daddy's. > > Noted. Apologies. > > > It is DBP's response that you need if you are going to insist on > > including the referenced incident. > > Can I leave it to you to quickly get that response? > > Thanks, > -- > Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> At-Large Advisory > Committee: http://alac.info/ > > -- Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/ Attachment:
DOMAIN NAMES Whois TF2 Data Analysis 2 ver 2 Consent rml sjm 040804.doc |