Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [nc-transfer] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal

["Micheal Sherrill" <micheal@beethoven.com>]

Wait a minute.  I am all for protecting abused wives, children, and those seeking political asylum.  But, what does this have to do with the Whois function?  I agree that perhaps a felony conviction for a first time offense is harsh but please do not forget what this Internet was, and is all about, openness.  At this time this (openness) is being clogged by a proliferation of SPAMers that will, eventually, plug the pipe for any meaningful communication.  If we do not have the means to track accurate information of those that seek to take advantage of all the resources that others fund how will we survive?  Your arguments pluck at our heartstrings but they also try to pluck my pocketbook.  I mean, how many children have their own domain name?  And if they can afford it, why do they need to hide their identity?  It would seem to me that most children are trying to reach other children.  So why protect them from each other?  Besides, the children do not register the domain names, their parents usually do.  It has nothing to do with discovery.  Even more so, what Internet sites are dedicated to battered women that would somehow lead angry, misguided men to a safe house?  I do not think that any support group would purchase a domain name but would be smart enough and economical enough to go through a Web hosting company.  And what is even more perplexing is the reference to free speech.  Free speech is about openness.  We talk about things in the open!  So why the need for subterfuge?  If we have free speech on the Internet what makes sense about listing a false address for our cause?  Anything else is already illegal, even via the USPS.  Plus, I have no idea what you are talking about in reference to trademark holders sending out cease and desist letters.  Overall, the logic of your complaint does not compute.

Regards,


Micheal Sherrill


---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
Date:  Mon, 17 Jun 2002 19:55:34 -0700

Barbara and all,

  We [INEGroup] agree with you here Barbara, and are in process of
contacting the appropriate senate and House members that are
involved in this rather arcane and misguided legislation being considered.

  I personally would suggest that anyone concerned about their personal
safety, and privacy that are Domain Name holders do likewise without
delay...

Barbara Simons wrote:

> I agree that accurate information should be provided for the technical
> liaison.  What I'm saying is that a law that makes it a felony to provide
> inaccurate information for the domain name holder creates major problems
> regarding political speech, shelters for battered women, children who own
> their own domain name, etc.  The whois database is an open invitation for
> massive privacy invasion of domain name owners (as opposed to technical
> contacts).  HR 4640 would make it a felony in the U.S., punishable by up to
> 5 years in prison, to provide false address information for the owner of a
> domain name.  This would be a boon to trademark holders who are eager to
> send out large numbers of cease and desist letters, and a blow to people who
> care about protecting our privacy.
>
> I didn't mean to start a discussion about HR 4640, though I hope that this
> has helped to make our US based members aware of this misguided legislative
> proposal.
>
> Regards,
> Barbara
>
> On 6/17/02 5:03 PM, "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > The problem is more than just the submission of a false credential, it is
> > the operations of the Registrar with that false credential that compounds
> > the problem. I would suggest that an additional requirements such that the
> > registrars were required to ping each one of the addresses that their domain
> > managers have supplied and any that bounce more than once are flamed, and
> > the domain is pulled and held in suspense for an additional 30 days.
> >
> > If you have a domain and you don't know whether its up or down in a months
> > time then its not too important and well should be flamed.
> >
> > Todd Glassey
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
> > To: <simons@acm.org>
> > Cc: <james.love@cptech.org>; <marc@fuchsia.bijt.net>;
> > <nc-transfer@dnso.org>; <discuss@icann-ncc.org>
> > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 4:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: [nc-transfer] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal
> >
> >
> >> My proposal was *not* an endorsement of any US legislation.   What I mean
> >> by "accurate" whois data is that the person expressing interest in an
> >> expired domain has to be a real person, with a real billing address.
> >> That is already a requirement in the gTLD registry contracts.  It could be
> >> any real person, including a real person who is doing it for someone else.
> >>  This is in the context of a one person one chance lottery over expired
> >> domains.    If you did not think you could address the one person one
> >> chance approach, you could have a lottery among registrars, which are
> >> unique.
> >>   Jamie
> >>
> >>
> >>> Jamie,
> >>> What do you mean by "accurate" whois data?  Does this mean that you
> >>> support HR 4640, which would make it a felony to provide inaccurate
> >>> information, even including address info of the domain name holder?
> >>> I'm sure you appreciate the privacy implications of requiring domain
> >>> name owners, eg parents who have purchased domain names for their kids,
> >>> to provide their physical addresses.
> >>> Barbara
> >>> P.S.  While it's important that accurate whois information be provided
> >>> for the technical contact, I see no compelling reason for providing
> >>> accurate address information about the owner of the domain name.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de