RE: [ga] RE: Whois more in detail

["Theresa Taylor" <theresa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paypal does at this time but only if you have a merchant account.

Theresa Taylor

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
kidsearch
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:06 AM
To: Roberto Gaetano; 'Paul Stahura'; 'Jeff Williams'; 'Dominik Filipp'
Cc: 'icann whois'; 'ga'
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Whois more in detail

Hi Roberto and thanks. I am open to hearing more suggestions about how else 
this can be achieved and think it a proper topic for this list to tackle. 
But for now, the whois would and could be a "quick fix" until a better 
solution is worked out. There are several ways to go about improving trust 
from a consumer perspective and to protect consumers.

1. PayPal and Credit Card Companies as well as other financial processing 
companies could implement some sort of requirement that in order to use 
their services you must have valid contact info readily available to buyer. 
It could be achieved by making it a part of the signup process for their 
services where the contact info is sent from them to each buyer who buys 
from a particular website. Even after the fact would be better than what we 
have now.

2. Trust Certificates have so far been ineffective, but maybe they can be 
improved.

3. Last but not least is the whois.

Any other suggestions or comments on those?

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


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Paul Stahura'" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>; "'kidsearch'" 
<kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'Jeff Williams'" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
"'Dominik Filipp'" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'icann whois'" <whois-comments@xxxxxxxxx>; "'ga'" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 7:58 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Whois more in detail


> Paul Stahura wrote:
>
>> not yet, the aren't (domain name registrants), but someday...
>>
>
> You raise an interesting point. I have been convinced for years that this
> was going to happen *eventually*.
> However, we might wonder what is the timeframe that we are talking about.
>
> Also, putting this in context, I would argue that domain name registrants 
> of
> tomorrow might be more informed than the non-registrant users of today.
> Today it is easy to fall prey of scammers, and therefore it would not hurt
> if the current rules (of today) were more protective of the average
> inexperieced user than what would be reasonable to have in a mature market
> where all actors have some degree of experience.
>
> All this to say that I am in favour of some form of control of the
> commercial use of the internet, in terms of providing to the inexperienced
> counterpart some degree of assurance of the trustworthness (sp?) of the
> commercial operator (I hate to limit the case only to commercial sellers 
> and
> individual buyers, there is much more going on on the net).
> WHere I have doubts is whether this should be something built in at a 
> lower
> level like the WhoIs, versus some self-disciplined effort among content
> providers.
>
> So, today, for the scenario we are in, with a huge mass of inexperienced
> users, we might need solutions that are different from the solutions we
> might need in the future, in a more mature situation.
>
> (usual disclaimer, this is only my personal opinion)
>
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>
>
>
>