RE: [registrars] Brian Cute from NSI is the wrong person for thewhois privacy committee
I would expect eliminating that requirement benefits NSI greatly. I would
guess that it benefits them more than any other registrar, don't you think?
--On Thursday, June 19, 2003 4:58 PM -0500 Tim Ruiz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On
> Behalf Of Jim Archer
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 12:24 PM
> To: email@example.com
> 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
> 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
James W. Archer