Re: [ga] Get out of my name space. A review of IP property concerns on Domain Names ect...
Jeff Williams wrote: I guess one must read privacy policies on website and then decide whether to access them. Should there be a requirement that cookies and tracking may not be used on the entry page of websites and that visitors must first be forced to read and agree before continuing? (Not feasible since visitors may enter via subpages from links).Hugh/Eric, and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users, Personally, I think every site that tracks anything should state precisely what they are doing on the main page and it should also be a *prominant* link from all subpages. In the end, it's still "visitor beware" and getting worse all the time. Search engine sites, telephone number search sites and most others now track every move you make and will not operate unless you have cookies enabled. Should cookies be disallowed? Scraping should be disallowed, IMO.
How would you automate it when you have no idea to whom the information is being disseminated? Go register on a Sex or Gambling site or better yet a credit or travel site. Maybe it is fair here. But to register like this to get a domain name??? Who regulates the registration of domain names anyhow? Why is it fair for a sex, gambling or travel site any more than for any other site? Spam is spam. The fallacy is that you have established a business relationship with that site simply by viewing it, whether purposely or by accident (again, re sitefinder). Are they? Registration of domain names in the context here is part of a business model. Aside from the proscribed so-called sunrise provisions, shared registratrion software requirements, whois and other technical aspects, ICANN should not be regulating the business of domain registration unless that process interferes with the core operation of the internet itself (which sitefinder does). The gathering of information and using it for other purposes "should" perhaps be part of the contractual relationship with ICANN, but ICANN should not involve itself with consumer questions. Spam, for instance, is not an area where ICANN should be regulating. It cannot do anything to stem the flow of mail, website activity or anything above the core layer. Furthermore, it has no mandate to interfere with the upper layers that operate on top of the core protocols. Spam is content management. That should be regulated by others, perhaps governments, perhaps not. However, it is the backbone providers, ISPs and network management that must work in concert to stop spam. Goverments can certainly take a stand and make it painful for prolific spammers to stay in business. Spam also must be defined so that authorities can actually pass legislation to address it properly. It has yet to be properly defined. As for sites tracking you and either sharing or selling that information, aggregate or not, I have to wonder whether that should be regulated. The problem is that governments have a propensity for creating overly broad regulations that end up harming not only consumers, but small business as well. DMCA is typcial of that. So is ACPA. DMCA will end up stifling entire industries and criminalizing average consumers exercising their basic rights. I think the only way ICANN could become involved with the spam issue might be to include in their contracts with registries a clause that prohibits sharing registrant information with or selling to any third parties, period. The same should be true of registrars. Whois should not contain email addresses in a format that can be scraped and the only email address that should be published is the technical contact. Of course that won't happen as long as the IP interests control ICANN, which they do.
|