Re: [ga] scammers using whois privacy

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The name (and contact information) of the person making the request would be
conveyed to the data subjects (i.e. the person[s] named in the whois 
record].
It is only fair that when someone asks about you that you should know who is
asking.

Actually Karl that isn't bad at all. I wouldn't have any problem with it the 
way you explained it here. Sorry if I misunderstood it beforee.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Hugh Dierker" <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>; "Roberto Gaetano" 
<roberto@xxxxxxxxx>; "'Dena Whitebirch'" <shore@xxxxxxxxxx>; "'ga'" 
<ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] scammers using whois privacy


> kidsearch wrote:
> > 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?
>
> In my original proposal the details were more clearly spelled out.
>
> The name (and contact information) of the person making the request would 
> be conveyed to the data subjects (i.e. the person[s] named in the whois 
> record]. It is only fair that when someone asks about you that you should 
> know who is asking.
>
> But the name of the data requester would be made visible to the public 
> only via periodic reports that count who made how many inquiries, and 
> anyone who made more than a threshold number of inquiries across all of 
> whois would be listed. Thus, if you only asked about a few names your name 
> would not appear in the periodic report, but if you asked about lots and 
> lots of names, then you would appear.  This *is* subject to gaming - large 
> law firms for example, might spread their inquiries across a large number 
> of associates, paralegals, and clerical staff rather than identifying the 
> principals who are really asking.
>
> That period report would also try to aggregate the reasons in some way - 
> so that people who use whois to make large numbers of trademark 
> accusations could be identified.
>
> I don't see any problem with the slight imbalance.  The people listed in 
> whois had to chose between being in whois or not using the internet.  The 
> people who are making the inquiry have a choice - they can go through the 
> system I propose and be listed in the periodic report if they do whois 
> mining, or they can use standard legal processes, get a subpoena to access 
> the records, without the public ever really knowing.
>
> --karl--