Re: [ga] Privacy and Whois databases

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

At 02:58 PM 10/15/99 -0400, you wrote:
>But Marty, couldn't this be solved with the "opt out" options for
>individuals who choose to be anonymous?
>
>If an ecommerce vendor has chosen to make his identify and contact
>information unavailable by opting out, isn't that a pretty strong signal to
>the consumer to avoid him?


Yes, but many consumer complaints only arise after the transaction has
occurred.
>

>In addition, at least as far as secure transactions are concerned, the
>secure Certificates (SSL) issued by Verisign and Thawte and others could be
>seen as serving this kind of ecommerce identification service, I expect...


Agreed.




>
>Best wishes,
>
>Bill Semich
>.NU Domain
>
>At 02:23 PM 10/15/99 -0400, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>>I respectfully disagree and remind Bill that there are non-trademark issues
>>involved every so often.  How about mere consumer protection?  Certainly in
>>the commercial sphere the identity of a merchant should not be anonymous
>>and there are strong policy arguments for full disclosure.  If someone has
>>to contact a registrar each time they want to verify the identity of a
>>vendor on the web (and "justify" a valid need), it would have a chilling
>>effect on ecommerce.  And the registrars don't want to field these calls,
>>right?
>>
>>If it's an anti-Pinochet website, that's another story, which is why these
>>policies should be flexible.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>This contact information should be private, I believe. If someone needs
>>>contact imformation (for example, a trademakr attorney) about a domain name
>>>holder, they should reveal what they need it for and who they are to the
>>>registrar/registry before private information is given to them. 
>>>
>>>If they can not justify a valid need for this information, it should be
>>>witheld.
>>>
>>>What does the rest of the DNSO think?
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Bill Semich
>>>.NU Domain
>>>
>>>
>>
>>@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
>>
>>
>
>

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @