Re: [ga-sys] Registrars want privacy

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Hello Ross,
Yes, the context is important, but does not diminish the point, which I will
rephrase in a more direct, less glib manner. While I regret the post is
fairly lengthy for something you will have heard before, it cannot be
overstated at this time.

I do not disagree with anything you say below, along the lines of....
Disclosing data liberally about private hotlines defeats the purpose of
having them, granted. If these were made generally available, the contacts
would quickly be overwhelmed by general nature inquiries and would not be
available for critical issues and genuine emergencies, granted. Most
Registrars (and other large and medium size businesses in the developed
world) provide special contact data for customer service, usually a 1-800
number, to avoid clogging up key communication systems, granted.

The counterpoint to that argument is that most Registrants have equally
important demands on their time, yet fewer resources to delegate. I could
say that I do not consider your time spent in dealing with a general
inquiry, while an emergency needs attendance, any more inappropriate than my
time spent dealing with an unsolicited offer generated from a telemarketer,
while my own emergencies may remain unattended. The two equate.

We must not overlook the fact that most individuals, families, community
organizations and small businesses coming on-line are limited in the contact
data they can provide for the purchase of a domain name. This is a key
factor in the future success of a domain industry that seeks to covert new
and inexperienced users into domain name registrants.

The contact data range starts from the individual user with a name and
residential address (whereby the user registers a free email address by
logging on at local library/ college) - and extends through name, address
and one phone line - to name, address and two phones lines - to name,
address, two phone lines and a PO Box Number - through x number of phone
lines, DSL connection, PO Box Number, office premises and whatever is
appropriate to the size of the operation.

Each of these resources are acquired on a must have basis, and I suggest
that the thought would not even occur to the new and inexperienced user
(unless told in banner headlines) that it is esential to acquire a whole
raft of extra services BEFORE REGISTRATION, (PO BOX number or MBE, phone
line, escrow service for process and server info etc.), simply to avoid
future problems about which they know nothing. These problems are real, and
amount to adverse effects that are being suffered by specific groups of
internet stakeholders as a direct result of ICANN policy with respect to the
WHOIS data, and I don't just mean BulkWHOIS.

So, for those at the starting gate with no knowledge of the junk mail they
are about to receive, for which you will never receive any thanks, don't you
think the same statement made above applies equally, that "If these were
made generally available, the contacts would quickly be overwhelmed by
general nature inquiries and would not be available for critical issues and
genuine emergencies."?

People have residential phone lines to receive calls from people they know -
their children, family, friends, customers for the mom and pop business, not
from telemarketers. It's hard to find a letter in the post these days
amongst all the unsolicited catalogues, not to mention bucketloads of SPAM
from relentless abuses of data that it is impossible for any normal person
to reduce without the fulltime help of an Unsubscribe Assisitant. In this
day and age, the problem of junk mail has reached the heights of
ridiculousness, intrusive in the extreme if made by phone, and indescribably
irritating when faced on a daily basis. I know I am not alone on this one.

Whereas you may have a hot line free for the real work, a secretary to
filter your mail, customer service to handle time wasters, and an army of
professionals to deal with all aspects of your life, most of the world does
not. And it's about time that those who have the power to stop this abusive
behavior gave proper consideration to the adverse affects suffered by the
vast majority of internet stakeholders, in terms of helping to reduce to
lost man hours and natural resources that are being squandered in dealing
with an overload of this stuff on a daily basis.

I appreciate that TUCOWS is due some credit for the current privacy
initiative, and commend you for that, but would like to see it go further.
And would encourage you all the way to crush whatever opportunities may
present themselves for unwarranted intrusion into people's personal lives.
Personally, I consider present difficulties regarding physical junk mail as
temporary, being natural fall-out from the early stages of development of
the digital age, but as some junk reduces, other forms increase, so all that
changes is distribution, while the source of the problem remains the same.

As we have reached the stage where information is readily accessible
digitally in the developed world, there really is no good reason for any
business to engage in practices that are generally regarded here as the
dumping of unsolicited waste in people's personal front yards. Those that
want it are welcome to opt-in. I support your initiative to make opt-out the
default 100% for BulkWHOIS, and urge you to do the same for the WHOIS public
database also.

What is of most importance for the stability of the internet is to solve the
technical problems of how System Administrators can troubleshoot in an
emergency without the contact details from a public WHOIS that they say they
need (but which the current rules encourage a Registrant to hide). To that
end, I have yet to hear a valid argument for a Registrant's real name,
physical postal address and residential phone number to be on that shopping
list.


Regards,
Joanna

  

on 5/25/01 7:23 AM, Ross Wm. Rader at ross@tucows.com wrote:

> In defence of the principle behind the conversation surrounding the first
> quote, the general conversation was concerning increased coordination
> between registrars for the purpose of increasing registrant service. Every
> day I get far too many calls from registrants with problems that take far
> too long to resolve because "hotline" information about another registrar is
> simply not available. With private hotline information like this available
> to all registrars, it really would make it much easier to resolve customer
> service issues.
> 
> As it currently stands, with a lot of registrars, issues of this nature
> simply get queued up with the rest of their general inquiries. Not exactly a
> great situation when one is trying to get to the bottom of a critical
> support situation like a hijacking or something similar. If the information
> described below was made generally available, the contacts would quickly be
> overwhelmed by general nature inquiries and not the emergencies that we were
> discussing.

> We were not discussing making registrar data completely private, hidden or
> otherwise obfuscated. I think that you will find that registrar contact data
> is readily available for most types of inquiries with most registrars
> because that is our business.

> Hope this clarifies the original context somewhat.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -rwr
> 
> 
> 
> Tucows Inc.
> t. 416.538.5492
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> To: "ga-sys" <ga-sys@dnso.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 7:00 AM
> Subject: [ga-sys] Registrars want privacy
> 
> 
>> In the "one rule for us and one rule for them" department:-
>> 
>> Scott Allan wrote:-
>> <snip>
>> As promised, I have whipped together a (real quick) site to be considered
>> as a proposed forum for aggregating Registrar contact information......
>> http://www.registrar-contacts.com
>> <snip>
>> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00602.html
>> 
>> Eric Schaetzlein replied:-
>> Scott,
>> that was quick - but I strongly ask you to put password-protection in
> place
>> - you can send the passwd to the list.
>> Those contact infos are not for the general public.
>> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00604.html
>> 
>> - and with respect to WHOIS data -
>> 
>> Hi Larry,
>> 
>> I don't think the thick registry is the problem. It makes perfectly
>> sense to store that information in a central place, that's what a registry
>> is good for.
>> 
>> On the other hand it should be defined by contract who "owns" the
> customer,
>> and that's clearly the registrar.
>> 
>> I heard that .pro will also introduce a directory lookup service
>> ("give me all lawyers in Germany")
>> 
>> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg00599.html
>> 
>> I have nothing personal against Mr Schaetzlein, just questioning the logic
>> that advocates a position that he is entitled to have his business contact
>> details under password protection while my personal contact details may be
>> sold by him or his colleagues for profit to anybody with $10,000 and
> without
>> my knowledge or consent.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Joanna
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 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