Re: [registrars] FW: [dow1tf] TR: IPC constituency statement for Whois TF1

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul,

Thank you for the ASCII version of the document.

The IPC errs in asserting the following:

	... Whois data is not a significant source of addresses for spam ...

This subject has been discussed in the IRTF ASRG, to which I contribute, and
it is the 3rd largest source of non-targeted address, and for targeted spam
in the dns market, the primary source.

At the risk of being vulger, they haven't gotten brighter since the UWHO
(pre-CRISP) dog-and-pony events of Spring 2001 when Steve Metalitz asserted
that he was technically competent to run a discussion of distributed thick,
thin, and recursive whois services. The IPC's document is the standard crap
they always serve.

I wrote the following:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-brunner-rfc954-historic-00.txt

   Unrestricted access to NIC user registration data is a significant
   cause of limited user trust in network security, hence in a trustable
   network.  Unrestricted access to NIC user registration data gives rise
   to excessive load on NIC user registration data services, excessive
   load on mail relays via unsolicited bulk email, and related abuses.

I concure with Tim, and if a proposal can't be expressed in P3P policy
statements on data collection, and explained to the EU- and OEDC- and
FTC-style parties legally responsible for personal privacy and data
collection and redistribution standards, then it is worse than what we do
have now.

For reference, Tim's sentance:

	No one should be allowed to take commercial advantage of a
	resource entirely collected, maintained, and funded by another
	party without compensation.

And mine:

	No one should be allowed to take advantage of a
	resource owned by its originator and collected, maintained,
	and by a data collector following a declared data collection
	policy, without informed prior consent by the originator and
	the data collector(s).

Since there isn't a chance in hell that the IPC will ever agree to any limit
on their right to run the show, there isn't any point in talking to them. No
bandaids.

Eric