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

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> 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").

Sorry George - I mean to say something to the effect of "...your
presumption seems to rely on an assumption that..." That's not exactly
what came out ;)


> 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.
>  

I'm referring to the corporate tendency to package up my contact
information and trade it back and forth as intellectual property in
transactions to which they are the sole beneficiary.

                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Kirikos [mailto:gkirikos@yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 12:12 PM
> To: ross@tucows.com; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] whois.txt, ala robots.txt, as a standard ?
> 
> 
> 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