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

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

If you want an economic explanation of why consumers might systematically
undervalue data privacy pertaining to their economic transactions please
see section II.A of 
http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/privacy-deathof.pdf
(alternate, messy, html version at
http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/privacy-deathof.htm)

On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, George Kirikos wrote:

> 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
> 
> 

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

--
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