Re: [ga] Get out of my name space. A review of IP property concerns on Domain Names ect...
Leah and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,
Leah G wrote:
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Hugh/Eric, and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
> > stakeholders/users,
> >
> > Hugh Dierker wrote:
> >
> >
> >> So here I go getting more spam if I enter this site!
> >>
> >>A quid pro quo - for their valuable info?
> >
> >
> > Guess so...
> >
> I guess one must read privacy policies on website and then decide
> whether to access them. Should there be a requirement that cookies and
> tracking may not be used on the entry page of websites and that visitors
> must first be forced to read and agree before continuing? (Not feasible
> since visitors may enter via subpages from links).
Yep!
>
>
> Personally, I think every site that tracks anything should state
> precisely what they are doing on the main page and it should also be a
> *prominant* link from all subpages.
I agree here absolutely.
>
>
> In the end, it's still "visitor beware" and getting worse all the time.
> Search engine sites, telephone number search sites and most others now
> track every move you make and will not operate unless you have cookies
> enabled. Should cookies be disallowed?
I always thought that cookies if not prominently shown on the
main page of any web site is an invasion of privacy and should be
disallowed. However I think it will take some legal actions along
these lines before this becomes a defacto standard...
>
>
> Scraping should be disallowed, IMO.
>
> >
> >>
> >>Is there a way to place an auto filter from all things which would
> >>emenate from anyone they would then sell my registration info to?
>
> How would you automate it when you have no idea to whom the information
> is being disseminated?
Good question. However if the Domain name owner, the registrar,
the registry and especially ICANN were held responsible as they
really should be, such gleaning of personal information in this way
would be severally decreased...
>
>
> >>Go register on a Sex or Gambling site or better yet a credit or travel
> >>site. Maybe it is fair here. But to register like this to get a
> >>domain name??? Who regulates the registration of domain names anyhow?
>
> Why is it fair for a sex, gambling or travel site any more than for any
> other site? Spam is spam. The fallacy is that you have established a
> business relationship with that site simply by viewing it, whether
> purposely or by accident (again, re sitefinder).
>
> >
> >
> > ICANN/ICANN't is supposed to be the regulator.
> Are they? Registration of domain names in the context here is part of a
> business model. Aside from the proscribed so-called sunrise provisions,
> shared registratrion software requirements, whois and other technical
> aspects, ICANN should not be regulating the business of domain
> registration unless that process interferes with the core operation of
> the internet itself (which sitefinder does). The gathering of
> information and using it for other purposes "should" perhaps be part of
> the contractual relationship with ICANN, but ICANN should not involve
> itself with consumer questions.
I agree with this thought to a point and disagree as well. I agree
that ICANN should not try to set business models, which the do
currently anyway with registries and registrars agreements and
new TLD's... However as a public trust servant, they must involve
themselves to a degree with consumer questions...
>
>
> Spam, for instance, is not an area where ICANN should be regulating.
Agreed as I have said many times before. But the can take measures
to address or limit spam, which as an organization, they don't...
> It
> cannot do anything to stem the flow of mail, website activity or
> anything above the core layer. Furthermore, it has no mandate to
> interfere with the upper layers that operate on top of the core
> protocols. Spam is content management. That should be regulated by
> others, perhaps governments, perhaps not. However, it is the backbone
> providers, ISPs and network management that must work in concert to stop
> spam.
ISPs and network management entities cannot carry all or even the
majority of the load...
>
>
> Goverments can certainly take a stand and make it painful for prolific
> spammers to stay in business.
Yes they can, but they will not do so...
> Spam also must be defined so that
> authorities can actually pass legislation to address it properly. It
> has yet to be properly defined.
Also agreed and central to the spam problem which spammers already
know.
> As for sites tracking you and either
> sharing or selling that information, aggregate or not, I have to wonder
> whether that should be regulated. The problem is that governments have
> a propensity for creating overly broad regulations that end up harming
> not only consumers, but small business as well. DMCA is typcial of
> that. So is ACPA. DMCA will end up stifling entire industries and
> criminalizing average consumers exercising their basic rights.
Surrogate orgs such as DCMA and ACPA almost always eventually
get over zealous if acting as a regulator... ICANN has done so in some
areas as you know...
>
>
> I think the only way ICANN could become involved with the spam issue
> might be to include in their contracts with registries a clause that
> prohibits sharing registrant information with or selling to any third
> parties, period.
Strongly agreed. As you may recall we INEGroup recommended that
very thing long ago now. Others also did likewise... ICANN and
especially Joe Sims, Vint Cerf, Louis Touton, and Mike Roberts
disregarded such recommendations out of hand...
> The same should be true of registrars. Whois should
> not contain email addresses in a format that can be scraped and the only
> email address that should be published is the technical contact.
Also strongly agreed here. And again already several times recommended
to ICANN by our members as well as many others. And again ignored
or dismissed out of hand by Joe Sims, Vint Cerf, Louis Touton, and
Mike Roberts.
>
>
> Of course that won't happen as long as the IP interests control ICANN,
> which they do.
Of course... Sadly true... And so the disgusting and disruptive
saga continues...
>
>
> --
> Leah G.
> http://forums.delphiforums.com/atlargeorg
> http://forums.delphiforums.com/domainwatch
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
"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.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827