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

[Dan Krimm <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Palmer,

Sorry for this delayed reply, just getting online right now, today.

It appears you only sent your response to me off-list.  If you mean for the
full subgroup (and the rest of the world) to see it, please post on-list.

Dan



At 12:12 PM -0500 5/24/07, Palmer Hamilton 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/>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/>http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49938/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/>