[ga] Fw: Re: [WHOIS-WG] [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] [FWD: RE: [ALAC-Announce] Meeting Invitation / Discussion on Domain Names Registered Using Private/Proxy Services / 14.12.09 @ 18:00 UTC]

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

  As an FYI...


-----Forwarded Message-----
>From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Dec 15, 2009 1:19 PM
>To: patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: whois-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, fbi.dallas@xxxxxxxxxx, 
>robert.smith1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Kimberly.Peretti@xxxxxxxxx, lehto.paul@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [WHOIS-WG] [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] [FWD: RE: [ALAC-Announce] 
>Meeting      Invitation / Discussion on Domain Names Registered Using        
>Private/Proxy Services / 14.12.09 @ 18:00 UTC]
>
>Patrick and all,
>
>  I am compelled to take exception with some of the statements
>you made below.  See interspersed below said statements.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Sent: Dec 15, 2009 1:48 AM
>>To: derek@xxxxxxxxx
>>Cc: whois-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: [WHOIS-WG] [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] [FWD: RE: [ALAC-Announce] 
>>Meeting     Invitation / Discussion on Domain Names Registered Using        
>>Private/Proxy Services / 14.12.09 @ 18:00 UTC]
>>
>>Derek,
>>
>>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 05:44:02 +0200, Derek Smythe <derek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> No Karl, ICANN is not being used as a private hired gun. And maybe 
>>> those "consumer advocates" may actually just be looking out for the 
>>> best interests of less technical people on the net.
>>> 
>>> Maybe the FDA is not really just trying to scare you into using their 
>>> buddies: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/ucm080588.htm
>>
>>Yes, The FDA is right you should not buy any drugs unless prescribed by a
>>doctor and bought in a licensed pharmacy. Indeed, prevention is better than
>>cure. Informing customers is a crucial part of that. Now, if the customer
>>does not want to listen and is stupid enough to buy counterfeit Viagra by
>>e-mail from an unknown seller, I don't have much compassion for this jerk. 
>>As long as there will be people willing to buy counterfeit drugs, offer
>>will meet demand. That is the basic rule of capitalism. 
>
>  Online pharamacy do exist and a few are ligitimate.  However it
>is difficult for the public to know for certain which are and which
>are not FDA approved and further that those that are so approved
>should have been given the FDA's recent history and record accordingly.
>>
>>That does not mean we should not try to catch those bandits, but this is
>>what our tax dollars/euros are supposed to pay for. If the law enforcement
>>agencies do not have enough resources to do the right job, I would go to my
>>congressman and ask him to better spend the citizen's money. But I won't do
>>the police's job in lieu of the police.
>
>  We should all be doing whatever our skill sets allow for us
>to assist in and to whatever degree LEA's in catching these bandits. 
>>
>>
>>> Maybe I have spoken to a few too many victims that have lost money 
>>> they will never see ever again recently. Also they will never see 
>>> justice in about 99.9% of the cases. Some of these victims are 
>>> "registrants" that actually never registered a domain, but their 
>>> credit cards were used. Their whois is there for all to see without 
>>> their permission. 
>>
>>And indeed, this proves the point that the WHOIS is basically useless,
>>full of fake data. My secret hope would be that one day we would have a
>>WHOIS database so accurate that we would have Ussama Bin Laden's real home
>>address in the WHOIS. But that will never happen, because we know that
>>those would want to hide themselves will always find ways to fake their
>>identity. This is as old as humanity. If you would ever convince ICANN to
>>prohibit the use of proxy and privacy services, you would see people using
>>other ways to hide themselves for good and not so good reasons. 
>>
>>> At the moment the greatest threat to privacy is irresponsible private 
>>> and proxy registrations: There, I've said it.
>>
>>Please define "irresponsible". It is irresponsible for me, as an
>>individual, to not want my private home address and phone number out on
>>display to the whole wide world ?  
>
>  Good question in response to Derek.
>>
>>> Since we are now also talking about "hired guns" and "e-vigilante": 
>>> What happens if you notify a registrar and the authorities of 
>>> nefarious websites with fake registration details and they do nothing 
>>
>>The registrars and registries I know (YMMV, of course) would take
>>appropriate actions if presented with evidence by a relevant authority.
>>Obviously, they are far less reactive with complaints originating from
>>lesser known organizations. Their job is to provide a technical service,
>>not to be the judges themselves. 
>
>  This is a sloppery slope as to cooperate with relevant authorities
>can sometimes be in error as such authorities far too often do not
>have the relevent skill to know that the evidence they have is 
>ligitimate and/or appropriate accordingly.  Ergo knowing where
>the presented evidance originated and the chain of custody of same
>may indeed taint or disqualify that presented evidence and as such
>the registry or registrar needs to know for a certainty the color
>of the presented evidence accrodingly BEFOR giving any information
>that is requested, lest they wich to be later sued for several
>relevant statutory violations.
>>
>>> It is also easy passing the buck, but delivering nothing constructive 
>>> to a recognized problematic issue. However, if we are to pass the 
>>> buck, how about then slapping a $20 surcharge onto domains for law 
>>> enforcement agencies worldwide that are now supposed to be the garbage 
>>> collectors in a system with ills they themselves have asked to be 
>>> corrected and were not? I
>>
>>Conceptually, cybercriminality is just another form of crime. There are
>>laws, and agencies to enforce them. As I said earler, this is what we pay
>>taxes for. Maybe we do not pay enough. But I do not see why honest domain
>>name registrants should pay a surcharge in order to give authorities enough
>>resources to catch a few criminals that happen to use domain names. Would
>>you agree to pay a surcharge on your checking account fees in order to help
>>fight money laundering ?
>
>  To answer your question, maybe!  Maybe if there is a demonstrated
>need for more funding in order for LEA's to effectively do their job. 
>>
>>This is an issue for the whole society, just like any other form of
>>selling of counterfeit goods. Domain names are just a tool for a business.
>>We need to fight the criminal business, whatever tool they use. And this is
>>far outside the remit of ICANN. 
>
>  ICANN's SSAC was formed for this purpose and like us all has a 
>responsibility, even a far greater one to do whatever it can to fight
>criminal business.
>>
>>Patrick
>>
>>-- 
>>Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu
>>Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WHOIS-WG mailing list
>>WHOIS-WG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>
>>WHOIS WG Wiki: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?whois_policy
>
>Regards,
>
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!)
>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
>   Abraham Lincoln
>
>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
>often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>
>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
>depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
>United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
>===============================================================
>Updated 1/26/04
>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
>Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Phone: 214-244-4827