RE: [registrars] Brian Cute from NSI is the wrong person for thewhois privacy committee

[Jim Archer <jarcher@registrationtek.com>]

Tim, I don't understand your point.

Regardless of whether or not it benefits the entire industry, it benefits 
NSI.  Do you really believe that the motivation of NSI to drop the bulk 
whois requirement was because they were concerned about privacy?  You don't 
suppose that it might have anythng to do with the fact that people could 
buy their customer list and use it to solicit transfers?

Would Brian have done that if it was not very important to NSI?  Are you 
saying that somehow this action is evidence that he would also do things 
that benefit the industry and do not benefit NSI? Worse, are you somehow 
saying that that it is evidence that he won't support changes the benefit 
NSI and harm the industry?

Can you point to a change in the whois or anything else Brian has proposed 
or supported that benefited the industry but was bad for NSI?  That might 
be evidence that I am wrong.  But remember, there is very little track 
record here, less then 4 months.

So Tim, tell us what you think.  Do you believe that Brian would propose or 
support a change in anything that was good for the industry but bad for 
NSI?

Jim


--On Thursday, June 19, 2003 5:20 PM -0500 Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com> wrote:

> I think it would benefit the industry as a whole, and go a long way in
> addressing the privacy issue. It certainly isn't the whole problem, but
> a significant part of it.
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Archer [mailto:jarcher@registrationtek.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 4:05 PM
> To: Tim Ruiz
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Brian Cute from NSI is the wrong person for
> the whois privacy committee
>
> Hi Tim...
>
> I would expect eliminating that requirement benefits NSI greatly.  I
> would
> guess that it benefits them more than any other registrar, don't you
> think?
>
>
> --On Thursday, June 19, 2003 4:58 PM -0500 Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Jim,
>>
>> I would just like to point out that it was Brian (likely supported by
>> his superiors) who proposed that the RC take the position to eliminate
>> the bulk whois obligation. That was put to a vote mid-April and 96% of
>> the voting members (44% of the total membership) voted to support that
>> position, including Brian (likely supported by his superiors).
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
>> Behalf Of Jim Archer
>> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 12:24 PM
>> To: registrars@dnso.org
>> Subject: [registrars] Brian Cute from NSI is the wrong person for the
>> whois privacy committee
>>
>> Hi All?
>>
>> I just wanted to take a moment to explain why I feel Brian Cute is not
>> an
>> appropriate choice for the whois privacy steering committee.
>>
>> Brian has been working in our industry only since February.  In
> general,
>> I
>> would oppose placing someone so new to our group and our industry in a
>> position this substantial.
>>
>> But Brian's nomination raises greater concerns.  Brian is now Director
>> of
>> Policy at NSI, currently the registrar with the most market share, the
>> most
>> cash to throw around, the most clout in Washington DC and, perhaps,
> the
>> most quickly tumbling stock price.
>>
>> We all know that NSI has in the past engaged in what many people have
>> agreed are deceptive marketing practices.  They were told to stop
>> repeatedly by US courts before they completely stopped. I have been
>> contacted privately by a number ? and not a small number ? of people
>> since
>> my last postings on this topic who told me that there were in fact
> more
>> lawsuits than I mentioned, and at least one investigation as well.
> More
>>
>> troubling, most of these people said although they agree that Brian is
>> not
>> a proper choice, they would prefer not to say so publicly.
>>
>> Speaking from direct experience, our customers and staff received the
>> "renewal notices."  The only way we can see that NSI got the
> registrant
>> information is from whois.  If the data came from some other source
> then
>>
>> whois I would like for NSI to tell me, and all of us, where they got
> it.
>>
>> Until they do, what we have here is compelling circumstantial evidence
>> that
>> NSI mined the whois data or acquired it from someone else who mined it
>> for
>> use in this deceptive marketing, and who knows what other purposes.
>>
>> When asked directly if Brian supports the use of whois data for this
>> purpose, he declines to answer.  When asked directly if he feels that
>> the
>> marketing campaign was proper, he refuses to answer, even though the
> US
>> courts have ruled against NSI.  Why is it that Brian and NSI can not
>> simply
>> admit that they made a mistake?  Why won't they say that they won't do
>> it
>> again.  Do they still have the data?
>>
>> It is inconceivable that Brian reports to different people than those
>> who
>> not just authorized and conducted that "renewal" campaign and who
>> continued
>> it (to some extent) even after a court ordered them to stop.  Why do
>> they
>> want Brian on this committee?  Why are they willing to expend
> resources
>> to
>> support his membership on this committee? Can you really convince
>> yourself
>> that it is because they want to benefit all registrars and our
> industry?
>>
>> Do you really believe that Brian will support policies that his
>> superiors
>> oppose?  Do you really believe he will oppose policies his superiors
>> support?  And, most of all, would you support Brian's superiors as
>> members
>> of the whois privacy committee?  If not, then you should not support
>> Brian.
>>
>>
>> So here we are today, selecting a representative for the whois
> "privacy"
>>
>> committee.  So far Brian has 8 votes!   Folks, putting Brian Cute on
>> this
>> committee is just like assigning the fox to guard the henhouse.  As
>> others
>> have correctly noted, this is not a big-registrar vs small registrar
>> issue.
>> Its just a right vs wrong issue.  This is wrong.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> *************************
>> James W. Archer
>> CEO
>> http://www.RegistrationTek.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
> *************************
> James W. Archer
> CEO
> http://www.RegistrationTek.com
>
>



*************************
James W. Archer
CEO
http://www.RegistrationTek.com