Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

George and all assembly members,

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> --- Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >   The legal costs as a result of the UDRP I would argue now much
> > higher
> > than without the UDRP.  In any event George, I do understand your
>
> Firms have a choice, and acting rationally they would choose the lowest
> cost means to effect a desired outcome. Without the public WHOIS info,
> one would need to seek a subpoena much too often to counter abusive
> behaviour, without the ability to sort things out privately with the
> other party.

  You point here is well taken by me.  But history has shown that the
IP community especially has shown clearly that they are not interested
in "sorting things out privately with the other party" in most instances.
Rather they are more interested in sending threatening legal notices
to registrants for sometimes non-reasonable complaints.

> It would be a make work project for lawyers, wasting
> thousands of dollars.

  Many lawyers do not seem to agree with your assertion here.

> OR, folks would have to suffer greater amounts of
> damages, before having to seek out the subpoena (i.e. if it costs
> $5,000 for a subpoena, if my damages were only $3,000 it wouldn't make
> sense to seek a subpoena).

  It might be yes.  Because if there is ample reason for you to follow
up on such a situation involving a Domain Name dispute will eventually
also collect your subpoena, and other legal costs should you have a
legitimate and strong case in civil or otherwise legal case...

> $5,000 might be a low estimate, given
> international elements of these matters (e.g. a person seeking a
> subpoena in Toronto for a domain registered in Italy to a registrant in
> Brazil).
>
> > argument.  I do believe that Privacy trumps Whois information listed
> > in a registration of a Domain Name.  Hence the need for a UDRP
>
> Why would privacy trump taking responsibility for one's domain in front
> of society?

  Well the simple answer is that the predominance of case law in the
supreme court in the US says so...  However this of course does not
necessarily apply to international cases that do not involve a US
registrant...

> I think that's the political issue, whether there is
> someone who's taking responsibility for behaviour originating from a
> domain. Owning a domain is inherently a public act, in my view. If
> you're a public actor, you've already made the choice of going into the
> public arena, and the privacy argument is moot.

  I can understand you view George, but I also am a private citizen
and may have interests in several businesses, small and otherwise
with domain name(s) that are an entragal part of my business or
for my own hobby, for instance.  Hence my or any other registrant
has a right to their personal privacy.  The current data structure used
in WHOIS records for a Domain Name registration is violating
the 1st amendment right to my privacy and unduly restricting me
as a result if I should choose to register a domain name(s)...

> Users within a domain
> name (e.g. individual email address holders) aren't required to provide
> their details to the public at large -- just the owner of the domain
> itself.

  Yes.  But what about 3rd level domain name registrants?  No, they
are not required to either.  Is that reasonable as well?  We think not.
Nor do any of our members believe such is reasonable or legal
for Domain Name registrants.  Personal information is not required
to work out disputes in Domain Name registrations.  Only an
admin. contact is necessary...

>
>
> If someone truly wants anonymity, they can appoint a lawyer or someone
> else to hold the domain name "in trust" on their behalf.

  Yes they sure can.  But such is also an undue restriction upon the
potential registrant.

> Then,
> trademark holders, or other parties, can contact the true domain name
> holder's representative as required.

  Same can be accomplished with a Admin. contact E-Mail address..

> That representative would be
> responsible for the affairs and damage arising from the domain. Good
> and responsible domain users wouldn't have to pay that representative
> very much, since they wouldn't cause that representative to suffer any
> damage. Abusive registrants would have to pay a high price for that
> privacy, just like high risk drivers pay more for car insurance. It's
> economically desirable to shift the costs of that abusive behaviour to
> abusers, and not to society at large. By allowing abusive people to
> have anonymity for "free", it shifts the costs of their abuse to
> someone else.

  I am not advocating anonymity by any means.  Just simple personal
privacy regarding personal information such as home address, home
phone Number and personal E-Mail address.

> Why should all the non-abusive people face those costs?

  They don't, and need not.  But also why should registrants have their
privacy guaranteed in the 1st amendment be open to abuse just to
register a Domain name?

>
> The benefits of absolute privacy for 100% of domain holders are just
> not that great (most people will give up their privacy if Amazon.com
> offers them a $5 coupon, or a chance to win a lottery -- remember
> this!).

  Yes I do remember.  That is why I would never use such a service.
And I bet that if most of these suckers know that they were potentially
having their privacy open to abuse they would not use such a service
either.

>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html