Re: [ga] OECD vs ICANN, re: WHOIS accuracy

[Gary Osbourne <gro@direct.ca>]

At 11:03 PM 06/07/02 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

>*If* DNS whois were accurate, then it would be a
>highly effective way to reach the problem source.

The original *problem* the WHOIS was designed for
was to correct infrastructure problems, what might
be stopping bits from getting from here to there.

Today, if my very-kewl-website.info goes dark from
its home cablemodem server, there is no significant
loss of internet integrity, and if one wants to argue
that my former visitors are disenfranchised, then why
is ICANN allowing the WLS which will in all probability
redirect my former traffic to a pr0n/gambling site
(which was the original cause of the OECD problem)?

One of the things that keeps me busy is working for
a site (unlike the above fictitious, though it may be
registered by some braindead speculator, example, I'm
not going to name it) which monitors hate groups. The
site (and the name is used for much more than a website)
gets millions of unique page views per month, But if the
domain entirely ceased to function tomorrow (and there
are those who try to make that happen) I can't imagine
a scenario where it would threaten internet stability.

As with the OECD case, it could fall into the wrong
hands though, with ICANN and WLS happy to lend a hand.
There were many more criticisms in the OECD report than
just WHOIS inaccuracy, many of them directed at ICANN.

You can't find any of those primarily involved with the
site via phone books, property records, or any other public
source we can think of. But we are supposed to risk life
and limb to ourselves and our loved ones just to expedite
the job of some IP lawyer who might think that our domain
name is confusingly similar to that of his client? Why not
just give the rationalization that, when online, property
rights should trump human rights and be done with it?

As you are on record as believing that the real or
potential at large community is composed of loonies, you
can hardly argue that my concerns are misplaced. BTW,
wazzup with the only email in the WHOIS for at-large.org?: 
kent@songbird.com#0 That's not a valid email address. -g

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