ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [dow1-2tf] RE: WSJ story re Whois and proxy services

  • To: "'Marc Schneiders'" <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] RE: WSJ story re Whois and proxy services
  • From: "Mansourkia, Magnolia" <Maggie.Mansourkia@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 10:01:02 +0000
  • Cc: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Marilyn Cade <mcade@xxxxxxx>, dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In light of all the back and forth on this issue, I think it further
demonstrates our need for further fact finding.  I would like to have more
information on the use, efficacy, etc. of proxy services, and to see our TF
come to a solid understanding of the benefits and shortcomings.  Aside from
the strong opinions some have that proxy services are not acceptable, I
think some further education and knowledge is useful before making policy
decisions and recommendations.  I can certainly respect their views, but
cannot agree to take it as absolute fact in lieu of objective information.  

I can agree with Milton that he may be an expert in scientific research, but
my goal is not to compete with him, simply understand all facts of what
current uptake and process issues are in regard to proxy services.  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Marc Schneiders
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 4:19 PM
To: Steven J. Metalitz IIPA
Cc: Thomas Roessler; Marilyn Cade; dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] RE: WSJ story re Whois and proxy services

Steve, what you say only holds, when we assume that all registrants
are fully aware of the issues. And even if that would be the case
(which I doubt, since many domains are registered long before these
cloaking services were introduced, e.g.), it still would not absolve
us from dealing with privacy issues, which are caused by us through
our insistance on a public whois. The fact that privacy issues are
somewhat (though not satisfactorily) solved by cloaking services,
should not distract us from solving the real issues. Private body
guards solve security problems for certain people. Still, we wouldn't
like politicians to point to that fact to dismiss the topic of safety
problems on the streets, do we? Or accept that they want a study about
them before dealing with street crime.

Marc Schneiders

On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, at 15:27 [=GMT-0400], Steven J. Metalitz IIPA wrote:

>  Thomas, I think you may have the proportions reversed.  The 5% figure
> (with the caveats from Paul that this may overstate  the proportion of
> registrants actually involved) may be indicative of the proportion of
> registrants who care enough about the privacy issue to take advantage of
> the option currently being offered.  This may be reasonably satisfactory
> for them, and that would seem to be quite relevant to any further
> recommendations that we might make.
> Steve Metalitz
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 8:59 AM
> To: Marilyn Cade
> Cc: Marc Schneiders; Steven J. Metalitz IIPA; dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] RE: WSJ story re Whois and proxy services
> On 2004-10-01 07:47:32 -0400, Marilyn Cade wrote:
> > As to anonymous services, why are we not intersted in learning more
> > about them to see what the satisfaction is with these services?
> We do have specific policy proposals on tiered access to discuss.
> If we trust the WSJ's numbers, that's an issue that affects the privacy
> of about 95% of new registrations (and their registrants).
> That should take priority over looking at services that are only used by
> 5% of registrants, without any particular policy proposals on the table.
> Don't you think?
> --
> Thomas Roessler * Personal soap box at <http://log.does-not-exist.org/>.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>