Re: [ga-sys] Registrants Charter - FREEDOMS - Part 1

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Hi Joanna. Can I add a question?

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
To: "Kristy McKee" <k@widgital.com>; <ga-sys@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ga-sys] Registrants Charter - FREEDOMS - Part 1


> on 5/15/01 6:52 PM, Kristy McKee at k@widgital.com wrote:
>
> Hello Kristy,
> > Any Registry should make their Second Level Domain Name Registrant
> > information available via WHOIS.
>
> Not in the public domain. The difficulty is that on one continent privacy
is
> deemed a right and on another it is deemed a privilege.
>
> I am working on Part 2 of my document to address specific adverse effects
> for individuals, families, and community organizations of such a policy
and
> having reviewed existing comments and papers (which I will attribute in
due
> course). Questions that need to be answered include (in no particular
order)
> :-
>
> 1) Why should I have to appoint myself as agent regarding service of
> process?
> 2) Why do telephone services offer unlisted numbers, but Registries-
> Registrars do not offer unlisted DNs?
> 3) Why should I have to relinquish personal privacy and personal rights
and
> protections to obtain a domain name?


3 A: Why should I have to sign to acknowledge the UDRP to get one?


> 4) Why do I have to be the subject of a growing number of third party
sales
> leads?
> 5) Why do I have to agree to third party profiteering from selling my
> personal data?an
> 6) Why does the DNSO not have an existing policy to protect affected
> Registrants privacy?
> 7) Why do the proposed new Agreements continue to impose public record of
> the physical contact address of an individual Registrant while introducing
> restrictions for less intrusive contact data (fax and email)?
> 8) Why does the Registry require any more than a technical contact for a
DN?
> 9) Why has ICANN engaged in Social policy making on this issue without
> consulting DNSO?
> 10) Why is information being collected, not for the purposes of billing,
but
> to make available to the public through the WHOIS database?
> 11) Why should every individual coming on-line disclose his/ her personal
> details in a manner that allows millions of people to gain immediate
access
> to potentially sensitive data?
> 12) Why should individuals and families with children have to suffer the
> inconvenience and not inconsequential cost of renting a PO Box number (if
> available) to protect their home address? (at US$45.00 locally, this
equates
> to roughly 400% per annum of the average cost paid by business in
equivalent
> DN Registration fees).
> 13) What attempts have been made by ICANN to consult affected stakeholders
> on these issues before presenting new agreements, if any?
>
> >
> > In accordance with the RFC's dealing with SPAM, it is not acceptable for
> > folks to use this WHOIS data to promote the generation of unsolicited
> > e-mails.
>
> But who is enforcing the SPAM policy and how?
>
> Already in existence are many companies helping rid the world of
> > SPAM with out generating more of it and I am confident balance will be
> > achieved in the future.
>
> SPAM is the least of the problems. For example, If I know your US address,
I
> have easy access to the price you paid for your house, when you bought it
> and roughly what it's worth now. That's valuable and sensitive information
> that may restrict nature of the website content linked to that address. It
> restricts freedom of speech. The bottom line is that Registries and
> Registrars should not be allowing unrestricted access to any personal data
> whatsoever. Personal data is for the Registrant to disclose in the public
> domain as they see fit, or not.
>
>
> > An opt-out system should never be in place to handle situations like
> > these:  if the decision is to use the language you provided for us, I
think
> > you must change it to an opt-in situation so no one who wants to opt-out
is
> > included in the master list ever
>
> I don't have problem with that. In fact, I agree with you, but proposed it
> in the usual way of the telecommunications industry, where details are
> automatically included in the directories unless a request is made to opt
> out. Interestingly, in the UK, to have an unlisted number costs no more
than
> a listed number, (and is recommended for certain groups, such as single
> women), whereas in the US, it is a chargeable option.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
> >
> > :)
> >
> > ~k
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-sys@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-sys" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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