RE: [ga-sys] Registrars want privacy

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Mm, it was not my intention to deflect, debate or diminish your point, but
rather simply to bring some context to your comment.

I can't say that I disagree with much of what you've stated below. It does
stand to reason that Eric was trying to employ the same "spam" avoidance
technique that you describe.

> 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.

If you have any specific suggestions, I would be pleased to consider them.

> 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.

It's not an arguement that I could effectively tackle (nor necessarily want
to), but I would have to say that the current implementation does make a lot
of intituitive sense to me. It's unfortunate however that the use of the
current implementation is far too often abused. The latter certainly has to
change, I just don't have any great ideas that will make this happen. Of
course, this doesn't mean that we will stand in the way of progressive and
effective privacy policy - far from it.

-rwr


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga-sys@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-sys@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Joanna Lane
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 12:26 PM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader; ga-sys
> Subject: Re: [ga-sys] Registrars want privacy
>
>
> 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
>

--
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