Re: [ifwp] Privacy Issues

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

Mr. Steinberg and all:

Yesterday, in it's response to WIPO, the DNRC asserted that it should have
been consulted by WIPO as to the selection of experts by WIPO, in part
because it is "the leading domain name organization."  I asked for
documentation of that claim, specifically, how many members does it have?
Other people speculated that DNRC would not reveal that its' membership
number on privacy grounds.

DNRC, to my knowledge, has not yet responded to this list asserting any
privacy issues and I have not asked anyone to divulge information which he
or she deems to be confidential.  So I don't think your comments that "I
don't get privacy" or that I am slinging mud" are particularly accurate

As for whether membership numbers themselves (as opposed to membership
identities) are private, I do note that Mr. Todd from ITUA immediately
wrote in and gave his group's number.

I also note that if a group makes two particular claims - the first (and
this is taken from the DNRC web site) that the DNRC represents "the voices
of small businesses, entrepreneurs and individuals" and the second is that
it is the leading domain name organization - then they are trying to
enhance their own words with the implication that they are speaking for
others.

At least Prof. Mueller never claims that anyone else in academia agrees
with him. ;')

If they are going to claim that they represent some type of view with
broad-based support, I don't think it is particularly outrageous for me to
ask them how many members they have.

They call themselves a public interest group, you know.  




 At 03:54 PM 8/25/98 -0400, you wrote:
>It has come to my attention that some members of these lists
>don't 'get it' when it comes to privacy.  One of the basic
>attributes of privacy concerns is that you shouldn't have to
>defend anyone's right to privacy.  When you keep on going,
>it immediately raises the unspoken assumption that someone
>has something to hide.
>
>Yet Kent Crispin, Dave Crocker and Martin Schwimmer (and
>perhaps others that I have already deleted in disgust from
>my in-box) appear intent on doing just that.  Whenever
>privacy is raised by one side and the other side keeps on
>asking questions, it is like asking 'so when did you stop
>beating your wife?'.  I find this trend repulsive,
>especially in that it appears to only be my friends they are
>attacking.  
>
>I am not a member of DNRC or ORSC, but I know some of the
>people involved in both organizations.  They have nothing to
>prove to Kent Crispin (or anyone else) and I am repulsed by
>certain individuals insistence on making a point at the
>expense of fairly fundamental rights.  Now before anyone
>start off about how privacy is not an inalienable right, I
>know all about that.  Just remember, we are not talking
>about national security or any of the other exceptions, and
>I don't recall anyone expressly waiving the rights to
>privacy.  So please kindly find a different way to sling mud
>to make your points.
>
> 
> 
>Dan Steinberg
>
>SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
>35, du Ravin
>Box 532, RR1		phone: (613) 794-5356
>Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
>J0X 1N0			e-mail:dstein@travel-net.com
>
>__________________________________________________
>To view the archive of this list, go to:
>http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
>
>To receive the digest version instead, send a
>blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
>subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
>unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
>___END____________________________________________
>
>
>