Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Additional Proposal
Margie Milam wrote: We can certainly come up with parameters to identify who is a legitimate service provider for the context of the access -- but the fact remains that service providers provide an important function in the anti-fraud, brand protection arena that merits discussion and access. The bulk access agreement can address abuse and termination rights by those that don't comply with the terms of the agreement. Yet no one is able convincingly demonstrate the connection between the value of the services that these parties (and others) provide, and continued unfettered access to whois. It is a bit of a logical jump to state that successfully fighting the brand protection fight is predicated on unlimited access to my customer data when in fact, most forms of IP protection, network abuse, phishing investigation, etc. are all differing means to investigate the internet resources that an individual or individual is using. 100% of this use requires an IP address and some form of access to network resources (via an ISP, hosting company etc.). Having ready access to domain registration customer information isn't wholly useful - although it may be partially useful. If it is only partially useful, then perhaps its reasonable to expect that its only partially available? In the real world, the existence of private investigators doesn't warrant the publication of Just because we have private investigators doesn't warrant the publication of unlisted telephone numbers. -r
|