Re: [ga] RE: Whois more in detail

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

However, this list can and I believe should debate this topic and see if 
there are any recommendations we can make or any actiopn we can initiate on 
behalf of users.

I don't believe this list to be just to hammer away at ICANN, but is a list 
to discuss issues that affect Internet users worldwide.

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


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "'ga'" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 4:55 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Whois more in detail


> Karl,
>
> > This is a quasi-business license.  It does much of what is
> > wanted.  And it requires no governmental body or single agency.
> >
> > And it does not expose the privacy of those who are not
> > sufficiently engaged in commerce on the net as to require an
> > SSL certificate.
> >
> > The difficulty is that SSL certs are not inexpensive.
>
>
> Indeed, this is the problem, but I believe that this is the good 
> direction.
> I don't think that the cost of the certification is justified by the raw
> costs of the operation, it is a market value. And probably, if some form 
> of
> certification is established for websites, the large numbers of potential
> customers of this service could justify a substantially lower price.
>
> For sure if we had this form of certification for ecommerce websites, or a
> similar one, the need for having detailed information in the WhoIs would 
> be
> dramatically reduced. The problem is that this approach has to come as a
> self-organizing process from the ecommerce business community, and is not 
> an
> area in which ICANN has, nor should have, any influence.
>
> Cheers,
> Roberto