<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Re: Whois more in detail
- To: kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Whois more in detail
- From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:16:31 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: icann whois <whois-comments@xxxxxxxxx>, ga <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=znHGuHyoZDwpRiQaNwEGzWqbmzkJ7ZE8bzlGTDwhsePkKpfjtlV2ZmzdgZZSToXdKafVzrIMIEiCHfgIrn7uLeRUFXp1l4PhBD7+22jzquavt3SXIjjXK59xRhq3nMHh7N9UgmTUtGL1jTT/fkHkiZN6DcwM39q27ZCEDMqk+gI= ;
- In-reply-to: <01a401c735a1$6a2ed790$1701a8c0@WebBusiness>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dominik did a great job on this concept. I would have guessed the majority want their privacy protected even at the cost of not always knowing who you are dealing with on a site.
We should always remember that the original concepts behind the whois was so the IP interests could locate and sue alleged infringers. The whois is a direct result of anticybersquatting efforts.
e
kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm not surprised and believe a majority of people overall would want
disclosure.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dominik Filipp"
To: "kidsearch"
Cc: "icann whois" ; "ga"
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:16 AM
Subject: RE: Whois more in detail
Chris,
I have collected a list of pros and cons regarding the whois privacy
matter and have gotten this
* * *
a) Registrants tend to hide their identity data calling for keeping
individual and/or collective privacy right for variety of legitimate
reasons (personal safety, security, anti-spam protection, persecution,
abuse).
Amendment: PRIVACY
b) Suspected entities (spammers/scammers/speculators) call for the same
to hide their identity.
Amendment: DISCLOSURE
c) Companies harmed by copyright infringement or by other parties using
similar confusing domain name in bad faith call for disclosing as much
data as possible (the Red-Cross case).
Amendment: DISCLOSURE
d) Standard users want to access the data too in order to verify the
reliability of company before being charged via credit card, or before
initiating any sensitive negotiation/deal with the company.
Amendment: DISCLOSURE
e) Different national laws may impose different data privacy law
requirements (Dutch versus French models)
Amendment: NEUTRAL (cannot be influenced)
* * *
Just taken numerically its 3 : 1 in favour of disclosure, which is
geting me pretty surprised, particularly, now when I'm advocating the
privacy :-))).
I know this mechanical approach might seem ridiculous, but anyway...
What do you think? Frankly, I'm a bit puzzled...
Dominik
---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|