Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Focusing on access proposals

[jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Milton and all,

  Let's also not forget that banks and LEA's are also many 
times the abusers.  For instance rbns.com, royal bank of scotland,
and a host of already well known LEA's.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Milton Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
>Sent: May 12, 2007 12:04 AM
>To: gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [gnso-acc-sgb] Focusing on access proposals
>
>I am deliberately restricting this post to sgb, the access group. 
>
>>>> "Palmer Hamilton" <PalmerHamilton@xxxxxxxxxxx> 5/11/2007 2:44:00 PM
>>>>
>>For example, one of my banks had a case in which it had to 
>>use local police in a foreign country to visit the physical address 
>>of the website owner to get the site taken down.
>
>Palmer: To make progress, we need to tie all these arguments to
>specific access proposals. Otherwise we're just beating each other over
>the head with the same arguments we've been making for years. 
>
>The biggest problem I have with your argument here, is that its seems
>to be based on the premise of the need for unlimited access to all Whois
>data. It does not do anything to tell us who access should be restricted
>to and how it should be restricted. 
>
>And that is the conversation we are supposed to be having. 
>
>A good aspect of your bank proposal was that it seemed to identify a
>specific third party, governmentally chartered banks, which could be
>easily certified as such. But it also seemed to imply that banks should
>have the same unlimited access to all whois records as they do now, and
>to put banks on the same par with LEAs.
>
>But banks are not alone in being subject to internet abuse. In fact,
>almost any industrial sector that deals with information could have
>similar problems. And so could individuals for that matter. So just as
>you make a "special" claim for banks, so could others make a special
>claim for trademark owners, e-commerce companies, etc., etc. and since
>they are subject to abuse as well there is no basis for a distinction.
>
>If providing open access to Whois data only meant that it was used
>exclusively for fighting abuses, we wouldn't be having this debate.
>Everything would be simple. what you seem to be overlooking is that in
>order to get access to pursue the .01% of Internet users or domains that
>are problematic, you are by definition opening up the other 99.99% to
>the data harvesting and unlimited use by anyone, for any purpose. 
>
>Obviously, a complete open access solution is not a proportionate, just
>or effective response to the problems you identify. This just seems so
>obvious to me. 
>
>We have to talk about restrictions on access. And we have to design
>those restrictions in a way that optimially filters out the potential
>for abuse of openness while efficiently providing access when it is
>needed.  
>
>As long as discussion proceeds on the presumption that open access to
>whois data is a desirable and possible thing, we will make no progress.
>
>
>Even those who favor the status quo must realize that there are growing
>legal and business factors that render it nonviable. 

Regards,

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827