<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?
I agree...and just for the record, Michael is not alone. I have been
saying pretty much the same thing for hmmmmm....over 5 years certainly,
maybe 6.
And without checking the archives I would be willing to bet that Michael
Froomkin and Karl Auerbach have been saying it just as long, perhaps
longer. I dont know for sure cause the name Karl Auerbach meant
something to me as a techie long before the legal stuff came up. I'm
just mentioning Karl and Michael as examples but I could fill this
message with names of people (who are repected in this field) who agree.
Yes it is tiring, and saddening, to have to repeat the same message
over and over again.
Please. This is not rocket science here. It is a simple message. You
are trying to make the internet a worse place to live than the
brick-and-mortar world. It should be a haven, a place to flourish. This
just feels like people walking around with hammers (cause thats what
they were issued with) looking for nails and not caring what else is
around just because it is more convenient for *them* to work that way
irrespective of how the law is.
Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>I'm sorry but I do think this is quite an incorrect depiction of reality.
>
>One gets a domain name to have a permanent address under one's own
>control. It might be for publication, it might be for email. Not
>everyone with a domain name has a web page. Some just have email. And
>they may want one address for life -- just look at the travails described
>here:
>http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/24/0439225&mode=nested
>
>As for expectations of privacy, I really don't see why those are or should
>be any different from getting a telephone number (which can, if you wish,
>have a fax machine attached that will send a fax to anyone who calls in --
>a lot like a web page!). We allow unlisted numbers for those and the
>world has to come to an end.
>
>Even in the case of people who publish web pages, the suggestion that
>being a publisher creates a legal or moral obligation to publish one's
>contact details is inimical to our traditions as a free society, a
>tradition that dates back to the pseudonymous publication of the
>Federalist papers, and which is routinely upheld in a series of supreme
>court decisions, the most recent being only last year.
>
>None of this is news, and one gets tired of having to repeat it.
>
>On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP wrote:
>
>
>
>>Putting up a web site is not the same thing as contacting an ISP and
>>subscribing and getting an email account. Some may wish the
>>assumptions regarding those actions and what the expectation of
>>privacy is are the same, but I don't see how they are.
>>
>>The difference between those acts is pretty profound. In one case, one
>>subscribes to a domain name for the purpose of holding one's self out
>>to communicate with the public. ISPs provide a reasonable expectation
>>of privacy to the subscriber, and their service agreements specify
>>what that is. The agreements which registrars should provide
>>information about the publication of data in the WHOIS.
>>
>>When you put up a web site, you are inviting the public at large to
>>visit your site and to use the content on it; perhaps with
>>subscription, perhaps for free.
>>
>>Yes, I understand that some people think that domain names are
>>substituable for email addresses. That's an interesting, and unproven
>>model for the "average" user. Not the techie oriented crowd who hangs
>>around ICANN, but those everyday users of the Internet and other
>>communications services who are focused on their daily lives, and
>>their businesses, not on technology and its fascinations. :-) THAT was
>>not meant as in any way critical, just a note that well, there are are
>>millions of email users out there and they are quite happily served by
>>ISPs. AND the ISPs are quite happy serving them.
>>
>>As to policy questions, versus personal opinions, the question of
>>whether all data that is presently in the WHOIS should be there is a
>>topic yet to be discussed as policy; the question of whether there is
>>a need for differentiated access to data elements is yet to be
>>discussed as policy. The WHOIS TF will be recommending further policy
>>examination. The final report on some of its work is published for
>>final comment. When we say "final report", we mean final report about
>>this particular set of work. The Council will determine further work,
>>but I expect that there will be support for next steps.
>>
>>Secondly, Karl, you are both right and wrong regarding WHAT WHOIS.
>>I've had conversations with both system administrators adn enforcement
>>teams from various companies -- they tell me that in fact both kinds
>>of WHOIS are used and that both are higly inaccurate, filled with
>>"aged" data, and with purposeful errors, ... that is, unless there is
>>overcrowding at various residential locations at the North Pole and
>>non-resident citizens of the US are invited to bunk in, in apparently
>>the numbers of dozens to hundreds at the U.S. White House. Oh, yes,
>>one more, and unless "XXX" has now become a working area code in the
>>US. Accuracy remains a problem in both "kinds" of WHOIS -- IP and
>>DNS. :-)
>>
>>Marilyn Cade
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
>>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 1:25 AM
>>To: Karl Auerbach; Ram Mohan
>>Cc: 'George Kirikos'; ga@dnso.org
>>Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?
>>
>>
>>Its the right track Karl, but the right answer is:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Assuming for the moment that ISP's and such obtained value out of DNS
>>>whois information - That still doesn't justify them mucking around unless
>>>certain conditions are met:
>>>
>>>
>>1. The registrant has given the accessor (ISP in your example) specific
>>permission to access and use their data.
>>
>>
>> -rwr
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Got Blog? http://www.byte.org
>>
>>"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
>>thought which they seldom use."
>> - Soren Kierkegaard
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@CaveBear.com>
>>To: "Ram Mohan" <rmohan@afilias.info>
>>Cc: <ross@tucows.com>; "'George Kirikos'" <gkirikos@yahoo.com>;
>><ga@dnso.org>
>>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 1:01 AM
>>Subject: Re: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Ram Mohan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Interesting thoughts and an interesting premise. The problem is, that
>>>>
>>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>>groups you mention here (marketers, IP folks, etc) are not the only
>>>>
>>>>
>>people
>>
>>
>>>>who utilize Whois information.
>>>>
>>>>System operators (including technicians, systems administrators
>>>>
>>>>
>>responding
>>
>>
>>>>to abuse, etc) often depend solely on information found in Whois to
>>>>determine next courses of action for serious network and other related
>>>>issues.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I disagree - Folks in NOCs *do* use something called "whois", but it most
>>>often it is a distinct set of databases pertaining to IP address
>>>allocations.
>>>
>>>Why do NOC folks use the IP "whois"? Simply because the key that one has
>>>for the lookup is less easily forged. Domain names on purported spam
>>>e-mail are only ocassionally accurate. But the IP address on a TCP
>>>connection has intrinsic value because a TCP connection can not be formed
>>>unless both the source and destination address are actually reachable.
>>>
>>>Assuming for the moment that ISP's and such obtained value out of DNS
>>>whois information - That still doesn't justify them mucking around unless
>>>certain conditions are met:
>>>
>>> 1. That a person who acquires a domain name is informed from the outset
>>>that such access will be performed by ISP people. (I.e. actual or implied
>>>consent by the data subject.)
>>>
>>> 2. The person who is doing the looking is actually a real ISP person
>>>following up on a specific legitimate problem.
>>>
>>>It would not be all that hard for anyone claiming to be an "ISP" to jump
>>>through some qualification hoops in order to gain a whois access
>>>credential. For instance, once a year.
>>>
>>>The burden of proving that access to personally identifiable information
>>>is a valid access ought to fall on the person requesting access, not on
>>>the data subject.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Your premise is also that all individuals provide accurate information.
>>>>
>>>>
>>We
>>
>>
>>>>know (you definitely do, as a registrar) that some of the most egregious
>>>>violators make sure that they provide _false_ information.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Why are people who feel they need to protect their privacy "egregious
>>>violators". Suppose you had young children, would you feel comfortable
>>>publishing your (and thus their) addresses and phone numbers onto an open
>>>directory?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Giving individuals the sole right to provide information about them
>>>>seems to swing the pendulum too far one way.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It's their information; they have the right to control it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>.... However, your suggested solution provides a
>>>>wonderful shelter for every spammer, DDoS violator and domain-slammer to
>>>>hide behind.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Nonesense. If there are reasonable grounds to believe that someone has
>>>violated a civil or criminal law, there are well established legal
>>>procedures (many of which involve going before a neutral magistrate and
>>>making a showing of those reasonable grounds) to obtain access to things
>>>like domain name registration databases.
>>>
>>>Absent such a showing, there is no reason to violate privacy. That is,
>>>unless one accepts as a working premise that those who are accused are
>>>considered guilty until they prove otherwise.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Whois Task Force is working on providing meaningful recommendations
>>>>that, among other things, addresses the issue of Bulk Whois.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Until they establish that there is a reason for public publication of DNS
>>>registration information in the first place, such recommendations are
>>>fundamentally useless.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The IETF Provreg group is debating adding a <privacy> element as a
>>>>standard part of the de-facto standard domain protocol (EPP).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>If you follow what is going on there, they are debating whether even to
>>>include some very weak, and potentially useless, mechanisms, and only
>>>because the IESG is holding the working group's feet to the fire.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Let's be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>And let's be careful not to turn whois into Megan's law in reverse: in
>>>which internet users are forced to publish their (and their children's)
>>>names, addresses, and phone numbers for the benefit of any and all
>>>predators.
>>>
>>>--karl--
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>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
>>
>>--
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Dan Steinberg
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
--
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
>>>
|