Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Follow-up regarding ESA proposal for sub-group (b)

[jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Milton and all sgb members,

  Agreed there should be exact equity in both cases.  Automatically
considering all registrants as criminals and therefore requiring
constant supervision is a ludicrous and in most countires
not a lawful consideration.

  Again however it is clear that organizations like ESA, MPAA,
ect., do consider such to be true.  This notion is very troubling
as well as fearful to many business ecommerce folks as recent
court cases RIAA and MPAA have clearly shown.  

-----Original Message-----
>From: Milton Mueller <Mueller@xxxxxxx>
>Sent: May 21, 2007 10:44 AM
>To: gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx, Michael Warnecke <mwarnecke@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Follow-up regarding ESA proposal for       
>sub-group (b)
>
>Michael:
>Thanks for the detailed response. Here are some of my reactions:
>
>>>> "Michael Warnecke" <mwarnecke@xxxxxxxxxx> 5/21/2007 10:59 AM >>>
>>our proposal includes a meaningful enforcement mechanism: a complaint
>
>>procedure that would permit a third party to challenge the
>subscriber's 
>>continued access if that party can demonstrate that the subscriber
>either 
>>materially misrepresented the purpose of its access or grossly abused
>
>>access privileges.
>
>The problem is that your proposal includes no viable mechanism to allow
>third parties to monitor what people are doing with the data. How could
>a data protection authority, a company or an ordinary user know what
>someone else is doing with the data? Abuse would have to be quite gross
>for anyone to notice, and the challenge procedure would allow it to
>continue for weeks or months.
>
>This constitutes a massive shift in what some constituencies think the
>burden of proof should be. Users of whois are considered innocent until
>proven guilty, whereas all domain name registrants are considered
>potential criminals who can be monitored by anyone for any reason. It is
>interesting that you apply two different standards. You think domain
>name registrants who _might_ engage in fraud must be subject to constant
>surveillance and action against them taken so quickly that no due
>process is possible, but you think people using Whois data should be
>able to engage in abuse until someone complains and proves their case. 
>
>Don't you think the same standard of equity should apply in both cases?
> 
>
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