ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-acc-sgb]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-acc-sgb] whois and spam harvesting-RESENDING

  • To: <gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-acc-sgb] whois and spam harvesting-RESENDING
  • From: "Margie Milam" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 13:06:56 -0600

I believe it is relevant in response to others citing abuse as the
reason for significantly restricting access to WHOIS.

Margie  

-----Original Message-----
From: Margie Milam 
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 1:02 PM
To: 'Milton Mueller'; robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
met@xxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-acc-sgb] whois and spam harvesting



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 12:19 PM
To: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; met@xxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-acc-sgb] whois and spam harvesting

This topic does not seem relevant to developing a restricted access
proposal. 

Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org

>>> "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx> 05/14/07 4:05 PM >>>
>Of course, the FTC's own study showed the opposite of what EPIC stated
>-- that Whois is not a significant contributor of e-mail addresses for
>spamming purposes.






<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy