RE: [registrars] Brian Cute from NSI is the wrong person for the whois privacy committee

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

Hello Jim,

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).

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
Behalf Of Jim Archer
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 12:24 PM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Brian Cute from NSI is the wrong person for the
whois privacy committee

Hi All?

I just wanted to take a moment to explain why I feel Brian Cute is not
an 
appropriate choice for the whois privacy steering committee.

Brian has been working in our industry only since February.  In general,
I 
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
of 
Policy at NSI, currently the registrar with the most market share, the
most 
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
since 
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
not 
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
that 
NSI mined the whois data or acquired it from someone else who mined it
for 
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
the 
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
simply 
admit that they made a mistake?  Why won't they say that they won't do
it 
again.  Do they still have the data?

It is inconceivable that Brian reports to different people than those
who 
not just authorized and conducted that "renewal" campaign and who
continued 
it (to some extent) even after a court ordered them to stop.  Why do
they 
want Brian on this committee?  Why are they willing to expend resources
to 
support his membership on this committee? Can you really convince
yourself 
that it is because they want to benefit all registrars and our industry?

Do you really believe that Brian will support policies that his
superiors 
oppose?  Do you really believe he will oppose policies his superiors 
support?  And, most of all, would you support Brian's superiors as
members 
of the whois privacy committee?  If not, then you should not support
Brian. 


So here we are today, selecting a representative for the whois "privacy"

committee.  So far Brian has 8 votes!   Folks, putting Brian Cute on
this 
committee is just like assigning the fox to guard the henhouse.  As
others 
have correctly noted, this is not a big-registrar vs small registrar
issue. 
Its just a right vs wrong issue.  This is wrong.

Jim

*************************
James W. Archer
CEO
http://www.RegistrationTek.com