RE: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com>]

Hi Ross,

--- "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
> George, your assumption is that privacy is an option that people
> desire
> in the same manner that they lust after consumer goods.

Hmmm, I don't think I really assumed that. I just assumed that one
could *measure* the benefits in some way. Even though it's something
that is intangible and subjective, folks make such valuations everyday
(we're not all living with $500,000 security systems and personal
bodyguards, because we value our lives as "priceless").
 
> me. Continuing to adhere to policy (not just ICANN) that prevents me
> from commercially exploiting (or otherwise exploiting) the value of
> my
> data is just fundamentally wrong. Why should a registrar benefit from
> the sale of *my* information - why shouldn't *I* benefit from the
> sale
> of my information? You don't have a right to spam me, you don't have

I agree with you 100%. I'm against spam as much as anyone else (owning
as many domain names as you know I do, as my registrar, you can imagine
how much spam I get per day, ugh!). I'm for very strong anti-spam
legislation that would punish the spammers, and make that activity
uneconomic. Drive them out of business. I don't think making WHOIS data
more private would be an effective solution to the problem. Strong
opt-out legislation, like there are in some US states (and proposed
federally) for telephone numbers, with clear punishments, would help a
lot. When the professional spammers start losing their homes, and going
to jail next to someone named "Bubba", and having to be careful when
bending over to pick up that bar of soap in the jail showers, I'll be
as happy as others!

> Again, I ask if this level of control holds true for corporate
> interests, why does it prove false for me?

Corporations publish their contact details in various public places as
a matter of law, in most jurisdictions. They can be reached, when
necessary, without having to go through legal hoops at great expense.
This helps keep their behaviour somewhat responsible, compared to the
theoretical case where corporations were all anonymous.
 
Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/
--
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