ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< 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 >>>