Re: [gnso-whois-wg] individual/business distinction

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for explaining Paul. I am reading up on previous discussions so I'm 
up to speed on everything.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Stahura" <paul.stahura@xxxxxxxx>
To: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG)" 
<Lynn.Goodendorf@xxxxxxx>; "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>; 
<gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx>; "Adam Scoville" <ascoville@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 1:58 PM
Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-wg] individual/business distinction


> Yes, if the registrants choose to make it private, which is why they
> wont.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kidsearch [mailto:kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 3:51 PM
> To: Paul Stahura; Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG); Milton Mueller;
> gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx; Adam Scoville
> Subject: Re: [gnso-whois-wg] individual/business distinction
>
> exactly. so if all whois is private, then we should do no business with
> anyone on the web?
>
> I'll lay off until the subgroups convene as we likely should. Just good
> discussion points to consider. it seems that privacy and spam have been
> brought to the forefront while consumer protection and consumer
> confidence
> have dropped in priority.
>
> I find that bad for business.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Paul Stahura" <paul.stahura@xxxxxxxx>
> To: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG)"
> <Lynn.Goodendorf@xxxxxxx>; "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>;
> <gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx>; "Adam Scoville" <ascoville@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 6:44 PM
> Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-wg] individual/business distinction
>
>
> > I am serious.  I'm not talking about the encryption aspect of a
> > certificate.
> >
> > There is no system that can verify/authenticate that
> > 1) this entity has a certain name, is at a certain street address,
> etc.
> > AND
> > 2) this entity is a) "legitimate" AND b) non-profit AND c) assisting
> > victims of a specific disaster
> >
> > The closest thing we have is a high-assurance certificate which partly
> > accomplishes #1.
> >
> > If an entity, through their website, asks you for a donation or
> solicits
> > your business and that entity has their whois information as "adfadsf
> > adfasdf" or "Protected", then you should probably consider not doing
> > business with that entity.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: kidsearch [mailto:kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 3:35 PM
> > To: Paul Stahura; Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG); Milton Mueller;
> > gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx; Adam Scoville
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-whois-wg] individual/business distinction
> >
> > SSL Certificate? You're serious? So an ecommerce website can rip me
> off
> > through encryption? Secure data transfer does not equal knowing the
> > seller
> > is a legitimate entity. Ecommerce websites are asking me for secure
> > data, my
> > credit card # and more. I don't think asking for their whois info to
> be
> > readily available is aksing much in return.
> >
> > Spammers use domain names too. Blanket whois privacy across the board
> > allows
> > them to hide easier. I'm sure this is not intended to be the end
> result
> > but
> > the scammers and spammers will appreciate it I'm sure.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Paul Stahura" <paul.stahura@xxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG)" <Lynn.Goodendorf@xxxxxxx>; "Milton
> Mueller"
> > <Mueller@xxxxxxx>; <gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx>; "Adam Scoville"
> > <ascoville@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 6:19 PM
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-wg] individual/business distinction
> >
> >
> > > There already is such a verification/authentication procedure... its
> > > called a SSL Certificate
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG) [mailto:Lynn.Goodendorf@xxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:30 AM
> > > To: Milton Mueller; gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx; Adam Scoville
> > > Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-wg] individual/business distinction
> > >
> > > There is also social value in making sure that people are not
> > victimized
> > > by donating money to fraudulent sites when tragedies occur such as
> the
> > > recent Virginia Tech violence.   Immediately after that tragedy,
> there
> > > were multiple websites operating that claimed to be non-profit
> > entities
> > > providing various kinds of assistance to the families of victims,
> etc.
> > > We saw similar fraud activities for Hurricane Katrina and the
> previous
> > > Tsunami disaster in southeast Asia.
> > > There were even sites who represented themselves as UNICEF and the
> Red
> > > Cross.
> > >
> > > Generous people who are moved to give money to these causes need to
> be
> > > considered.  And this reflects on the overall consumer confidence in
> > > using the Internet to be able to rely on accurate representations.
> > > There needs to be some kind of verification or authentication
> > procedure,
> > > particularly for organizations who are going to accept monies.
> > > -Lynn Goodendorf
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
> > > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 1:33 PM
> > > To: gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx; Adam Scoville
> > > Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-wg] individual/business distinction
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > "Scoville, Adam" <ascoville@xxxxxxxxx> 4/30/2007 8:47 AM >>>
> > > > Milton is right, of course, that the OPoC proposal doesn't hide
> > > > identity, but it does make it less likely that third parties
> > > will
> > > > be able guess that information is inaccurate, in order to report it.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think the social value of being able to "guess" whether information
> > is
> > > inaccurate comes in a distant second, third or fourth to the
> > > individual's right to be shielded from the spamming and other risks
> > > associated with unrestricted publication. There are balances to be
> > > struck here.
> > >
> > > I want to emphasize that the need for striking a balance is not
> > > debatable or negotiable. It is an uncontested part of the GNSO
> > Council's
> > > policy. It is what the ICANN Board is looking for. It is what many of
> > > the world's governments are looking for, as well as the industry. If
> > you
> > > think you are going to come out of this working group with the same
> > > unrestricted, often illegal publicaton of private data that exists
> > now,
> > > you are simply wrong. So the issue is what balance will be struck. I
> > > hope everyone understand that.
> > >
> > > > And the bottom line is that it puts up another bureaucratic hurdle
> > that
> > > > must be cleared before a) the registrar checks that it really has
> > > > accurate information from the registrant, and b) that information can
> > > > be divulged when there are reasonable allegations of violations of
> > law.
> > > I am sorry that you perceive of individual registrant's rights to
> > > privacy as nothing more than a "bureaucratic hurdle." This is a very
> > > one-sided view, is it not? Again, the simple fact is that many
> > > registrants have an interest and a legal right in shielding some of
> > the
> > > data, just as you have an interest in gaining access to it. The OPoC
> > > recommendation was a good compromise in my opinion, but it needs to
> be
> > > fleshed out.
> > >
> > > Obviously law enforcement -- and your commercial clients -- would
> have
> > a
> > > much easier time if they could scan all of our emails and walk into
> > our
> > > offices at will and see what was on all of our hard drives. We don't
> > > allow that, and we shouldn't. I hope you agree.
> > >
> > > In this subgroup, everyone will need to transcend their role as an
> > > advocate for one set of interests, and think more broadly about how
> to
> > > reach acceptable compromises.