<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Report for tomorrow/Burden of proof
- To: gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Report for tomorrow/Burden of proof
- From: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 16:04:37 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
<HEAD>
<STYLE>body{font-family:
Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color:
#ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3086" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=compText>
<STYLE>body{font-family:
Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color:
#ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3086" name=GENERATOR>
<DIV>Dr. Dierker, Palmer, and all sgb members,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Seems to me both of you make good points and/or arguments. I
am still not sure</DIV>
<DIV>that there is real middle ground, as Milton had earlier indicated between
privacy</DIV>
<DIV>or the registrant and access. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> From the possition of sgb's scope, I do believe that determining
whom can become</DIV>
<DIV>third party accessors with some restrictions and not based on an industry
wide or</DIV>
<DIV>based determination. Yet the " what" remains a very contentious and
difficult</DIV>
<DIV>issue.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> The old saying a ounce of prevention is worth a puond of cure seems
also to</DIV>
<DIV>apply from both a privacy and a prevention of fraud perspective.
Fraud prevention</DIV>
<DIV>IMHO is best achieved by individuals and them having the ability to
control</DIV>
<DIV>whom and under what circumstances any third party has what level of
access</DIV>
<DIV>to any data pertaining to them. Ergo privacy of some Whois data
which </DIV>
<DIV>pretains to the registrant is essential and only with checks on why and
whom</DIV>
<DIV>any entity needs or precieves a need to that private data is
necessary. As such</DIV>
<DIV>"Rapid Takedown" in some instances or under some circumstances may
not</DIV>
<DIV>be achievable.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Third party accessors must be able to demonstrate that their
security</DIV>
<DIV>proceedures are current, effective, and diligently effected. They [
third</DIV>
<DIV>parties] must also be willing to submit to unannounced inspections by</DIV>
<DIV>qualified security experts whom are not government agencies. This
would</DIV>
<DIV>include LEA's being so subjected.</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR><BR> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff
2px solid">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Hugh Dierker
<HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: May 24, 2007 12:58 PM <BR>To: Palmer Hamilton
<PALMERHAMILTON@xxxxxxxxxxx>, avri@xxxxxxx, gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx <BR>Subject:
Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Report for tomorrow/Burden of proof <BR><BR>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>With all that said I believe the burden can be overcome with even more
checks and balances and mandatory procedures in place.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Eric<BR><BR><BR><B><I>Palmer Hamilton
<PalmerHamilton@xxxxxxxxxxx></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><ZZZMETA content="MS Exchange Server version
6.5.7651.59" name="Generator"><ZZZ!-- -- format plain text from Converted>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Eric,<BR><BR>Please see my email to Dan concerning the issue
of statistics. I address this point at some length. <BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>I am willing to discuss real world
experiences, and I would hope others would. If not, how do we ever find
middle ground?<BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx><BR>To: Avri
Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>; gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx
<gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Thu May 24 11:58:34 2007<BR>Subject:
Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Report for tomorrow/Burden of proof<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>Eric<BR><BR>Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
wrote:<BR><BR>
Hi,<BR> <BR> <BR>
On 24 maj 2007, at 04.09, Palmer Hamilton
wrote:<BR> <BR>
> Second, in the case of identity theft, the consumer
certainly<BR> > experiences the
serious and often devastating
adverse<BR> > consequences. Anyone
who has been the victim of ID theft
can<BR> > easily speak to this. It
is fine for us to talk about these
issues<BR> > in the abstract, but
talk to a victim of ID theft, and he or
she<BR> > will likely not be too
impressed some of the arguments we have
been<BR> >
hearing.<BR> <BR> <BR>
I may be confusing the topics somewhat, but one of the reasons I
have<BR> for having as little of the
information about registrants
available<BR> to as few as possible
is indeed to avoid giving ID thieves
the<BR> information they need to
steal the ID. So considering that the
vast<BR> majority (anyone have an
idea of the real %ages?) of registrants
are<BR> good law abiding folks and
only a very few are ID thieving bad
guys<BR> isn't the greater good
served more by keeping the information
as<BR> restricted as
possible?<BR> <BR>
a.<BR> <BR> <BR><BR><BR>________________________________<BR><BR>It's
here! Your new message!<BR>Get new email alerts <<A
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49938/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/";>http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49938/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/</A>>
with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. <<A
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49938/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/";>http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49938/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/</A>><BR></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P>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</P>
<P>Regards,<BR><BR>Jeffrey A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over
134k members/stakeholders strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the greatest
freedom" -<BR> Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go with the
performance of duty and not with what is very<BR>often the accident of glory" -
Theodore Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and
the burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied
by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States v. Carroll
Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir.
1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated
1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of<BR>Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good
standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Registered Email
addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827<BR><!--
--></P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BODY>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|