Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] query-screening paradigm

[jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Dan, Carole and all sgb members,

  Excellent and very well directed response here Dan.

  I have some brief remarks to it inline below:

-----Original Message-----
>From: Dan Krimm <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: May 26, 2007 4:12 PM
>To: gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] query-screening paradigm
>
>At 8:25 AM -0400 5/26/07, Carole Bird wrote:
>
>>Also could you clarify what your definition of an Affidavit is?  (I don't
>>want to assume that it is the same definition everywhere or that the
>>elements of an affidavit are the same everywhere.)
>>
>
>
>I'm using that term mainly because Susan used that word in her proposal.
>What I'm getting at here is simply a structured application for private
>Whois information that has some legal weight (the person applying is taking
>legal responsibility for accuracy of the application, with legal
>consequences in the event of fraud so that the audit trail is legally
>actionable, and tangible evidence must be provided in order to clear a
>minimal hurdle of need).

Excellent and what is needed to both be pre-emptive in addressing
fraud from both sides of the equation and meeting a relative need
of being able to address "rapid take down" in the event of strong
evidance of fraud occurring.
>
>However this paradigm needs to be designed to make that work, that's what
>I'm suggesting.  I'm certainly open to detailed points of refinement, as
>this is clearly not a 100% intact proposal.
>
>The overall idea here is that this process should not be located entirely
>in the private realm.  It needs real, serious hooks into the legal/judicial
>system in order to maintain accountability to public interests.  It's about
>retaining some meaningful structure of due process while allowing efficient
>and timely responsiveness where appropriate.  Those who claim this is not
>possible are not trying very hard to explore those possibilities.

  I agree with your conclusion.  There have been some consideration
given to allow in the case of banks/financial institutions, that
banking regulators act as the gate keepers.  I don't believe this
is realistic nor practical and also involves some risk regarding
trust of said banking regulators given the GAO reports rightly
indicating that in terms of the Internet, being far behind the
curve in regards to adaquate security.  I also seriously doubt
that the FDIC, Federal Banking commission, and the Treasury
Dept. would be even willing to step up to this responsibility
>
>The modus operandi I'm trying to use here is to keep our eyes on the
>general goals we want to achieve, and then explore the details to see if we
>can achieve them in an integrated paradigm.  That's the only way we get to
>real consensus.

Very much agreed.
>
>Palmer is right that we've been staking out (and arguing against) extreme
>positions for a few weeks here.  If we keep doing that we'll never get to
>consensus.  Consensus requires addressing *all* concerns *seriously*.  Most
>of the exchanges in this WG have not been serious in that sense, and I
>don't exclude many of my own contributions which have been arguing against
>extremes posed by others.

Also agreed.
>
>While I am not retracting anything I've posted here, and I think everything
>I've offered is self-consistent as a whole, I also recognize that many
>justified defensive contributions do not necessarily lead toward ultimate
>consensus.  My contributions over the last couple days are intended to
>alter that approach.

Agreed here also.  And as have been mine.
>
>Dan
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