<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?
Hello gents,
I will go deeper into some of the earlier send emails to, but let's make
the discussion clear first;
A. what is whois meant for
B. what is it used for
C. what do you use it for.
Let's make that a starter and leave out the entire privacy discussion
for a few steps, privacy rights are in a lot of more developed parts of
this world very well described.
Abel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf
> Of George Kirikos
> Sent: 07 February 2003 17:48
> To: Dan Steinberg
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?
>
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> Only 1 more message allowed today for me, as this is my 4th....
>
> --- Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca> wrote:
> > Once again I think you have failed to catch my meaning :-)
>
> Oh, I understood you very well. :) This is all about how to
> "frame" the debate, i.e. do we start debating as saying the
> status quo is "absolute privacy", and others need to show the
> need to pry open some of that privacy? Or, do we start from a
> status quo that has open, accurate, and transparent WHOIS data? :)
>
> I'm reminded of an episode of the Britcom "Yes, Prime
> Minister", where the PM and his aides are discussing the
> accuracy of polling (and this whole "framing" issue) to show
> that a majority is in support of mandatory National Service
> (i.e. a draft). See:
>
> http://www.wfsoftware.co.uk/mr/badsurvey.htm
>
> In this debate, the privacy advocates might ask:
>
> 1) Are you worried about increased crime and violence? (yes)
> 2) Are you unhappy about spam and cyberhacking on the internet? (yes)
> 3) Have you ever been concerned about being cyberstalked by
> strangers on ther internet? (yes)
> 4) Are you concerned about big corporations misusing your
> personal information? (yes)
> 4) Would you support greater protection of your WHOIS data on
> the internet? (of course, yes, yes, yes!)
>
> Whereas those seeking accurate and transparent WHOIS might
> frame things
> as:
>
> 1) Are you concerned about international terrorism? (yes)
> 2) Are you worried about high legal costs and overworked police? (yes)
> 3) Are you in favour of making the internet a safer place,
> and promoting responsible usage? (yes)
> 4) Do you support making it harder for spammers, criminals
> and terrorists to cover their tracks on the internet? (yes)
> 5) Are you in favour of keeping public access to WHOIS data (yes, yes,
> yes!!)
>
> hehe Of course, I'm pragmatic, and don't go for either of the
> above debating tactics (most of the time....I'm human). It's
> harder to do the above, when one sticks to economics, costs
> and benefits. My side has it easier, since the contracts in
> place already enforce WHOIS accuracy (both in the gTLDs and
> in .ca too; not sure about the other ccTLDs) -- it's the
> other side that has to change things.
>
> So, since you didn't take up my challenge to enumerate some
> of the benefits of increased privacy, economically, am I to
> assume that they were negligible? :) Please describe for the
> court (of public opinion!) what dollar value you'd place on
> not having to publish WHOIS data for your domains, i.e. the
> benefits of that increased privacy?
>
> 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
>
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|