[ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [nc-transfer] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLSproposal

[eric@hi-tek.com]

This nicely prosed letter illustrates very well the problems with whois.
Not that they are exemplary in other ways but the folks that ran dotWS used to have
a great whois - wasn't one.  But we had a scrap over there with godzilla.ws and
everything worked out fine, as far as the whois went - we got a hold of each other
and threatened the ritual lawsuits and we all walked away.  But the failure to list
the Whois caused no problems and no delays.

As a marketer for a ccTLD what should one propose?  This wild open whois database
for the whole world to find Chris or something more intermediary?  I prefer the
latter.  Maybe it is time to impose upon our IP friends to develop a gentler and
kinder whois.  Remember the open whois was established so that trademark holders
could find and sue infringers.
A better world is ours for the asking but we must ask.

Sincerely,
Eric

Barbara Simons wrote:

> If you are opposed to spammers, then I would think that you would be really
> upset with the whois database, which is a rich resource indeed for spammers.
>
> Information about where I live has nothing to do with openness or the lack
> thereof.  I am quite happy to have my email address made available (but not
> to spammers - I wish).  But surely you would not accuse me of a lack of
> openness if I were to refuse to provide my home address to the world in
> order to obtain my own domain name.  (It is entirely reasonable, by
> contrast, to require that I provide an accurate technical contact).
>
> I have no idea how many children have their own domain names, but there are
> obviously quite a few.  You might want to check out Chris Van Allen, whose
> dad gave him the domain name pokey.org several years ago.  Chris became
> somewhat famous when he was sent a cease and desist order by the Prema Toy
> Co., the company that manufactures Gumby.  You can read about Chris'
> adventures at www.pokey.org.
>
> To state the obvious, if a child has a website that has been purchased by
> that child's parent, and if the parent is required to provide his or her
> home address, most folks will be able to infer the address of the child.
>
> Many parents seem to believe that information about their children should
> not be posted for anyone in the world to view.  Many adults feel the same
> about their own information.
>
> You might have made a similar argument about drivers' license records being
> held by the California Dept of Motor Vehicles.  That information was open,
> and as a result a young women's home address was located by a stalker, and
> she was murdered.  I have heard about a woman who was stalked based on her
> whois information, but I'm afraid I can't give you a reference for that.
> Maybe someone else on one of these lists can.
>
> As far as political speech goes, I'm sure you are aware of countries and
> times during which criticism of one's government can be life threatening.
> And you don't have to go outside the US to find multiple examples of abuses
> and harassment of law abiding citizens by some law enforcement agencies.  If
> you have not been following the most recent revelations about the FBI and
> its obsession with UC Berkeley, the Free Speech Movement, and Clark Kerr,
> the then President of the University of California, I shall be happy to
> forward to you a very detailed set of articles published a couple of weeks
> ago in the San Francisco Chronicle.  If the '60s are ancient history for
> you, there are recent abuses by the LA Police Department, including the
> framing of innocent people, that date back only a few years.  I can send you
> some references for those as well.
>
> Openness does not mean that we must relinquish all notions of privacy if we
> are to own a domain name.  Rather than forcing people to provide information
> about where they are located, Congress should be requiring ICANN to
> institute meaningful privacy protections on the whois database.  Maybe then
> we could discuss whether or not the domain name owner's personal information
> should be provided.
>
> Barbara
>
> P.S.  The early incarnation of the Internet, ARPANET, was about maintaining
> communications after a devastating event such as the dropping of nuclear
> weapons on the US.  It was *not* about openness, nor was it about commerce.
> The openness that you and I both cherish came into being because of the
> small clique of researchers and academics who were the original ARPANET
> users.  I share your desire to maintain that openness and to prevent the
> Internet from being regulated and restricted to the point that it becomes a
> jazzed up Home Shopping Channel.  If the Internet is to continue to be the
> open communications channel that it has become, then it is critical that
> people have the ability to speak without fearing that everything they say
> and do can be monitored.
>
> On 6/17/02 10:46 PM, "Micheal Sherrill" <micheal@beethoven.com> wrote:
>
> > Wait a minute.  I am all for protecting abused wives, children, and those
> > seeking political asylum.  But, what does this have to do with the Whois
> > function?  I agree that perhaps a felony conviction for a first time offense
> > is harsh but please do not forget what this Internet was, and is all about,
> > openness.  At this time this (openness) is being clogged by a proliferation of
> > SPAMers that will, eventually, plug the pipe for any meaningful communication.
> > If we do not have the means to track accurate information of those that seek
> > to take advantage of all the resources that others fund how will we survive?
> > Your arguments pluck at our heartstrings but they also try to pluck my
> > pocketbook.  I mean, how many children have their own domain name?  And if
> > they can afford it, why do they need to hide their identity?  It would seem to
> > me that most children are trying to reach other children.  So why protect them
> > from each other?  Besides, the children do not register the domain names,
> > their parents usually do.  It has nothing to do with discovery.  Even more so,
> > what Internet sites are dedicated to battered women that would somehow lead
> > angry, misguided men to a safe house?  I do not think that any support group
> > would purchase a domain name but would be smart enough and economical enough
> > to go through a Web hosting company.  And what is even more perplexing is the
> > reference to free speech.  Free speech is about openness.  We talk about
> > things in the open!  So why the need for subterfuge?  If we have free speech
> > on the Internet what makes sense about listing a false address for our cause?
> > Anything else is already illegal, even via the USPS.  Plus, I have no idea
> > what you are talking about in reference to trademark holders sending out cease
> > and desist letters.  Overall, the logic of your complaint does not compute.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > Micheal Sherrill
> >
> >
> > ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> > From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> > Date:  Mon, 17 Jun 2002 19:55:34 -0700
> >
> > Barbara and all,
> >
> > We [INEGroup] agree with you here Barbara, and are in process of
> > contacting the appropriate senate and House members that are
> > involved in this rather arcane and misguided legislation being considered.
> >
> > I personally would suggest that anyone concerned about their personal
> > safety, and privacy that are Domain Name holders do likewise without
> > delay...
> >
> > Barbara Simons wrote:
> >
> >> I agree that accurate information should be provided for the technical
> >> liaison.  What I'm saying is that a law that makes it a felony to provide
> >> inaccurate information for the domain name holder creates major problems
> >> regarding political speech, shelters for battered women, children who own
> >> their own domain name, etc.  The whois database is an open invitation for
> >> massive privacy invasion of domain name owners (as opposed to technical
> >> contacts).  HR 4640 would make it a felony in the U.S., punishable by up to
> >> 5 years in prison, to provide false address information for the owner of a
> >> domain name.  This would be a boon to trademark holders who are eager to
> >> send out large numbers of cease and desist letters, and a blow to people who
> >> care about protecting our privacy.
> >>
> >> I didn't mean to start a discussion about HR 4640, though I hope that this
> >> has helped to make our US based members aware of this misguided legislative
> >> proposal.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Barbara
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

--
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