Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Report for tomorrow/Burden of proof

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Interesting point. The statistics are not overwhelming. The issue is not one of 
preventing internet fraud. The issue is the privacy of individuals. The Whois 
is a privacy issue not a law enforcement issue. Your arguments were not even 
around when the current UDRP and corresponding Whois contracts were negotiated 
or brought about by consensus. I was around and spending time in court over 
these issues. We cannot change the emphasis in the Whois from one of privacy to 
one of protecting banks and in some cases consumers.
   
  With all that said I believe the burden can be overcome with even more checks 
and balances and mandatory procedures in place.
   
  Eric


Palmer Hamilton <PalmerHamilton@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
      Eric,

Please see my email to Dan concerning the issue of statistics.  I address this 
point at some length. 

It seems to me that if you are proposing to make it more diificult to prevent 
internet fraud, you should bear some burden to justify your position.  
Otherwise, balancing of desired objects can't be done in the careful manner 
demanded of this Working Group. 

I am willing to discuss real world experiences, and I would hope others would.  
If not, how do we ever find middle ground?


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>; gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu May 24 11:58:34 2007
Subject: Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Report for tomorrow/Burden of proof

I think that this position is apriori. It is a given. Therefor I think there is 
a burden of proof upon third parties to overcome this assumption. At this point 
the discussion seems to be equal and that would require a finding in favor of 
privacy extension not retraction.

Eric

Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

        Hi,
       
       
        On 24 maj 2007, at 04.09, Palmer Hamilton wrote:
       
        > 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.
       
       
        I may be confusing the topics somewhat, but one of the reasons I have
        for having as little of the information about registrants available
        to as few as possible is indeed to avoid giving ID thieves the
        information they need to steal the ID. So considering that the vast
        majority (anyone have an idea of the real %ages?) of registrants are
        good law abiding folks and only a very few are ID thieving bad guys
        isn't the greater good served more by keeping the information as
        restricted as possible?
       
        a.
       
       


________________________________

It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts 
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49938/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/>
  with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. 
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49938/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/>



       Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel 
today!http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48517/*http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
 hot CTA = Join our Network Research Panel