RE: [registrars] Brian Cute from NSI is the wrong person for the whois privacy committee
I would just like to point out that it was Brian (likely supported by
his superiors) who proposed that the RC take the position to eliminate
the bulk whois obligation. That was put to a vote mid-April and 96% of
the voting members (44% of the total membership) voted to support that
position, including Brian (likely supported by his superiors).
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On
Behalf Of Jim Archer
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 12:24 PM
Subject: [registrars] Brian Cute from NSI is the wrong person for the
whois privacy committee
I just wanted to take a moment to explain why I feel Brian Cute is not
appropriate choice for the whois privacy steering committee.
Brian has been working in our industry only since February. In general,
would oppose placing someone so new to our group and our industry in a
position this substantial.
But Brian's nomination raises greater concerns. Brian is now Director
Policy at NSI, currently the registrar with the most market share, the
cash to throw around, the most clout in Washington DC and, perhaps, the
most quickly tumbling stock price.
We all know that NSI has in the past engaged in what many people have
agreed are deceptive marketing practices. They were told to stop
repeatedly by US courts before they completely stopped. I have been
contacted privately by a number ? and not a small number ? of people
my last postings on this topic who told me that there were in fact more
lawsuits than I mentioned, and at least one investigation as well. More
troubling, most of these people said although they agree that Brian is
a proper choice, they would prefer not to say so publicly.
Speaking from direct experience, our customers and staff received the
"renewal notices." The only way we can see that NSI got the registrant
information is from whois. If the data came from some other source then
whois I would like for NSI to tell me, and all of us, where they got it.
Until they do, what we have here is compelling circumstantial evidence
NSI mined the whois data or acquired it from someone else who mined it
use in this deceptive marketing, and who knows what other purposes.
When asked directly if Brian supports the use of whois data for this
purpose, he declines to answer. When asked directly if he feels that
marketing campaign was proper, he refuses to answer, even though the US
courts have ruled against NSI. Why is it that Brian and NSI can not
admit that they made a mistake? Why won't they say that they won't do
again. Do they still have the data?
It is inconceivable that Brian reports to different people than those
not just authorized and conducted that "renewal" campaign and who
it (to some extent) even after a court ordered them to stop. Why do
want Brian on this committee? Why are they willing to expend resources
support his membership on this committee? Can you really convince
that it is because they want to benefit all registrars and our industry?
Do you really believe that Brian will support policies that his
oppose? Do you really believe he will oppose policies his superiors
support? And, most of all, would you support Brian's superiors as
of the whois privacy committee? If not, then you should not support
So here we are today, selecting a representative for the whois "privacy"
committee. So far Brian has 8 votes! Folks, putting Brian Cute on
committee is just like assigning the fox to guard the henhouse. As
have correctly noted, this is not a big-registrar vs small registrar
Its just a right vs wrong issue. This is wrong.
James W. Archer