Re: [ga] scammers using whois privacy

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dr. Dierker and all,

  All good reasons here, and directly related to interpersonal privacy
and/or security.  And of course these reasons Dr. Dierker lists have
been again and again given starting with the very first Whois WG
conducted
by they than GNSO.  I hope such will satisfy Chris's remark.


Hugh Dierker wrote:

>    I have two adult daughters. I do not want just anyone being able to
> obtain the whois data for any reason what so ever. As for my adult
> wife the same holds true.
>
>   I do not want people getting these types of infos for spamming
> purposes.
>
>   I do not want someone using my info and pretending to be me.
>
>   I do not want only the rich to have to ability to circumvent the
> rules but others cannot.
>
>   I do not want to be subject to frivilous claims by anyone who can
> just look up the necessary data, with out have to show preliminary
> cause.
>
>   e
>
> kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>       I can list several reasons and have listed them why the whois
> information is a good thing for consumers, but haven't seen a list of
> good reasons why it should be hidden.
>
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Hugh Dierker
>   To: kidsearch ; Roberto Gaetano ; 'Karl Auerbach'
>   Cc: 'Dena Whitebirch' ; 'ga'
>   Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 8:07 PM
>   Subject: Re: [ga] scammers using whois privacy
>
>
>   I think we have a breach in language here. Users of lists, do just
> that, use lists. Keepers of lists, obviously do that - keep the list.
> The DMV example does not make the General public free users of the
> list. It is restricted to those with a genuine well established need
> to know.
>   Our WHOIS should be the same and all we should argue about is the
> protocols and criterion for that need to know is. And of course never
> ever in multiples.
>
>   e
>
>   ps. There is always that gal Sally who likes white chocolate and
> flowers that might bend the rules just this once ;-}
>
>
>
> kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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?
>
>   Karl that sounds more like something ICANN would consider rather
> than you. They use double standards all the time. You usually don't.
>
>   Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>   http://www.articlecontentprovider.com
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Hugh Dierker
>   To: Roberto Gaetano ; 'Karl Auerbach' ; 'kidsearch'
>   Cc: 'Dena Whitebirch' ; 'ga'
>   Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 9:07 AM
>   Subject: RE: [ga] scammers using whois privacy
>
>
>   This is not first for data control. Look at the model used by DMV of
> California. The data base is closed to the "general" public. But
> procedures are in place for someone with a real need to access the
> information. But only one a time.
>   I do not believe spammers have the time or cost effectivenes to
> justify getting ones' indenty one at a time and declaring under
> penalty of perjury a legitimate need.
>   (this of course has different criteria for law enforcement.)
>
>   Karl is right on the money here and we have over a decade to prove
> it.
>   Why would such intellent engineer folk want to reinvent the wheel.
>
>   e
>
> Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> >
> > And one of the curative measures that seems to constantly
> > escape the minds of ICANN is that *before* any person should
> > be allowed to examine whois information that person ought to
> > be required to declare, in writing, into a permanent and
> > public archive the following things:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> I have always problems with statements like "ICANN does not
> understand" or
> the like.
> Sure, some people in the ICANN Board or staff or community might be in
> that
> situation, maybe others do understand but cannot change the situation,
>
> others do understand, but disagree, and so on with a variety of
> approaches
> and behaviours that is, IMHO, one of the richness of this environment.
>
> This said, I would like to state what is *not* the opinion of ICANN,
> or at
> least not necessarily, but is *my* opinion.
>
> The matter is extremely complex and far from having one single simple
> solution, as the exchange btw. Chris and Karl has shown. For me, the
> real
> problem, besides the fact that there are different opinions and
> interests
> (which is part of the given landscape, and a constraint that cannot be
>
> changed), is the fact that we are trying to use the WhoIs for
> different
> things, that are only loosely connected with the purpose for which the
>
> system was designed.
>
> Karl, or anybody who has a longer experience than myself with the
> subject,
> are welcome to correct me if I am wrong, but the initial purpose of
> the
> WhoIs, and its importance for security and stability matters, is to be
> able
> to identify an entity that can respond if there is a problem with the
> corresponding resource (name or address). This does not imply in any
> way
> identification of the owner of the resource, quite the contrary, in
> the vast
> majority of the cases this is an agent with some kind of authority
> delegated
> by the owner. While I agree that the ultimate responsibility stays
> with the
> owner, there is no need to identify the owner in an emergency
> situation.
>
> May I use an example. Suppose I own a domain name, and suppose that I
> use
> some kind of hosting services for the website. Suppose that my domain
> name
> is used as a relay by a spammer or scammer for his/her activities. It
> would
> not do any good to contact me, because in my ignorance of the internet
>
> technology I would barely understand what they are talking about, ;et
> alone
> to be able to do something to cure the problem. The fact is that,
> under the
> assumptions above, I pay a provider for a service, and if anybody can
> intervene, it is the technical staff of the provider, not me.
>
> This for what I understand to be the original purpose of the WhoIs.
> Another
> aspect is to identify, once the emergency has been fixed by the
> technical
> staff, the responsible party who has to pay for the damages, so to
> speak.
> This is a completely different ball game,and although we could use the
> WhoIs
> for storing this kind of information, I personally continue to fail to
> see
> any reason for having this information publicly available.
>
> The problem raised by Chris is a legitimate, but complex one. I don't
> think
> that it would be an appropriate use of the WhoIs to be a repository
> for
> information that have to do with the contents of a web site. The
> problem of
> being able to trust a web site is (again IMHO, not necessarily in the
> Board's opinion) something that is related to the trade or other
> activity
> performed on the web site. In simple words, there is the case of the
> ecommerce site that claims to sell goods that will never be delivered,
> but
> also the site who gives false information making believe they are an
> important news agency, or a fake university that claims to give
> degrees, or
> whatever. I am absolutely convinced that it is the trade organization
> that
> should react to put measures in place as safeguards to the consumers,
> in
> exactly the same way we do have brand protections, guaranteed origin
> marks
> for producers, quality labels, and so on. In short, since illegal
> activities
> do damage the honest traders, the community of the trade has to put in
> place
> measures to protect the traders (and the consumers).
>
> I don't know if we are going to see certificates on websites that
> guarantee
> the contents of the website from the ecommerce point of view, but I do
>
> believe that bodies like the ICC should be looking at this, and that
> this
> solution is more appropriate than to bend the WhoIs system to do
> something
> that it was not designed to do, and also oblige the customers to do
> searches
> for which they might be not technically skilled for rather than being
> prompted with some visible sign that will give them the sufficient
> confidence that the site can be trusted.
>
> Roberto
> (in my personal capacity)
>
>
>   __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>   __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>  __

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k 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
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827