Re: [ga] scammers using whois privacy

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Karl, yes those of us who know better can decide not to do business with 
anyone hiding that info. Unfortunately not everyone does know to do that as 
you acknowledged below. That is exactly why there are consumer protection 
laws in most countries.

As far as going down that road, since they felt the need to protect 
trademark owners, mostly big business trademark owners, then why not let 
them protect the average Internet users for a change?

It may not end up being ICANN that does this and it may not end up being 
whois as you suggested before, however, it is an issue that does affect 
users every day on the web and a valid topic to try to resolve if possible 
in my opinion.

And I will continue to repeat. I do not believe individuals should be 
required to make this info public. So far everyone is pretty much arguning 
this point with me as if I am aiming it at individual users. I've seen no 
valid defense put forth as to why those who are asking for credit card or 
other payment and personal info from users should be allowed to hide their 
identity.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.articlecontentprovider.com



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'ga'" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] scammers using whois privacy


> kidsearch wrote:
> > Answers below under yours Karl.
>
> >  > Ask any women who has been stalked by someone using whois data.  Ask 
> > any
> >  > person who is afraid to write about an illness because they are afraid
> >  > of losing anonymity.  Ask any person who is willing to speak about an
> >  > unpopular subject as long as they can do so without being identified.
> >  *Ask any person who has had their money ripped off by unscrupulous 
> > website owners who hide their information to avoid anyone knowing who to 
> > sue or who to report for fraud and theft.*
>
> The difference is that the women who were stalked, the people who were in 
> fear of speaking on unpopular topics had to make a kind of Sophie's 
> Choice - as the price of using becoming an effective speaker on the 
> internet, ICANN is requiring that they give up their privacy.
>
> In your situation you have an easy self-cure that does not have the 
> draconian side effects - you could simply refrain from doing business with 
> vendors that don't meet your disclosure standards.
>
> As for your comment about not knowing who to sue - the legal system is 
> well equipped to deal with that.  Essentially you sue unidentified persons 
> and, during the early stages, you get the ability to obtain subpoenas, 
> supervised by a neutral judge, that will allow you to open up the 
> otherwise close books of who has registered what domain names. Notice is 
> given and an opportunity to object and make a defensive argument before a 
> nautral judge is given.  If the subpoena is then sustained and once the 
> identity is confirmed, the complaint is amended to substitute the names of 
> the real defendants.
>
> You are suggesting a means to solve a problem that has too many bad side 
> effects (i.e. the loss of everyone's privacy) when you have a perfectly 
> good option, that of being buyer who demands certain information from 
> sellers, that has no such side effects.
>
> Now, you may be trying to speak on behalf of others who are not as 
> discerning as yourself - there are a lot of people who will jump on any 
> proffered bargain from even the most suspect of vendors.  But that raises 
> a different question: Are we engaging in internet governance, particularly 
> internet technical governance, or are we engaging in consumer protection?
>
> My own sense is that turning ICANN into a consumer protection agency 
> (ICANN is already a trademark-owner protection agency) is a big step down 
> a very wrong road.
>
> --karl--