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

["Abel Wisman" <abel@url.org>]

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