Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Report for tomorrow

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Palmer and all sgb members,

 Palmer's argument on the surface seems logical and reasonable.  However

I would rebut by saying that his argument really is dependent on whether

the consumer is a customer of the bank or financial institution, how
long
he/she has been a customer, how large of a depositor they are, and
if the bank or financial institution is a regional bank or financial
institution,
or a national/international bank or financial institution.

Palmer Hamilton wrote:

>   Dan,
>
> Let me address why the consumer is at risk as well as the bank.
>
> First, not all risk is off loaded to the bank.  There can be
> circumstances where the consumer can be held liable.
>
> Second, in the case of identity theft, the consumer certainly
> experiences the serious and often devastating adverse consequences.
> Anyone who has been the victim of ID theft can easily speak to this.
> It is fine for us to talk about these issues in the abstract, but talk
> to a victim of ID theft, and he or she will likely not be too
> impressed some of the arguments we have been hearing.
>
> So, yes, banks do have an interest in limiiting their exposure, but
> that interest coincides with the interest of the consumer.  And, yes,
> there are unfortunately circumstances where life savings can be wiped
> out.  This isn't rhetoric.  This is unfortunate reality.
>
> I would submit that good public policy requires a careful balancing of
> interests.  When this is done, I think it is clear that a construct
> exists that will protect the consumer and protect the privacy concerns
> being expressed.  I fear that our subgroup does not seem to be engaged
> in this serious work.  Instead, we seem to be holding fast to
> positions without exploring creative constructs that protect multiple
> interests.
>
> To totally ignore the risk to the consumer, it seems to me, in order
> to uphold the theoretical, is neither wise nor justifiable.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wed May 23 20:36:29 2007
> Subject: Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Report for tomorrow
>
> At 5:34 PM -0700 5/23/07, Hugh Dierker wrote:
>
> >The concept that private IP concerns are interested in the data to
> protect
> >consumers is very interesting and I think requires some thought.
>
>
> One should not overstate this case.  For one example, as I understand
> it
> most credit card companies limit liability to customers if they report
>
> false charges promptly.  (And then they will change the credit card
> number,
> etc.)
>
> This off-loads risk from customer to the financial institutions
> directly.
> Thus in those cases the greatest damage is not to consumers but to the
>
> financial institutions.
>
> This is not to discount the interests of financial institutions, as
> they
> definitely have legitimate interests.  But for example talking about
> "consumers' life savings" rather than "financial institutions' profit
> margins" has a rather different ring to it.
>
> I'm all for supporting consumers' real interests in contexts where
> that
> makes sense, but I am rather less patient with rhetoric that holds up
> consumers as proxies for the interests of very wealthy legal persons.
>
> (Also: did you really mean "IP" above or "ID"?  I don't see *any*
> connection between "intellectual property" interests and consumer
> interests, while the financial institution arguments are more common
> and on
> the surface more plausible.)
>
> -----
>
> One other point, with regard to access types:
>
> I personally don't see any reason that anyone, even LEAs, would ever
> need
> "bulk access" to Whois data (which I interpret as the ability to
> download a
> registrar's entire Whois database in a single integrated lump -- this
> would
> be Type 3 access according to Milton's definition, if I understand
> correctly).
>
> Why would anyone ever need more than ongoing query access (as long as
> queries can sometimes entail multiple domains, such as "all domains
> for a
> particular registrant")?
>
> I would suggest that there may be no compelling case that warrants
> true
> bulk access to Whois data.
>
> Dan
>
> PS -- I believe Milton is going to revise the interim SGB report, so
> until
> we receive that I will endeavor to refrain from a whole lot of further
>
> comment.  I think it would be useful for us to proceed as much as
> possible
> from the outcome of our call today.
>

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