<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>"<font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">As for privacy proxy
solving the problem, it does not. Over collection is not
solved by providing a proxy in the third party disclosure
mechanism. It is still over-collection, disproportionate to
needs."</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I fundamentally
disagree because the purpose of ICANN is not the mere
facilitation of domain from registry to registrant. The
purpose is the security and stability of the internet and that
means I have a need to verify who is connecting to my network
and have a means of contacting them. That point has never been
made, to my knowledge, to them.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">The point that
removing that ability of me being able to contact domain
owners does far MORE to REDUCE the privacy of the registrants
than does publishing said information. We talk often about
verification out-of-band for sensitive communications. How can
I do that without a phone number?</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I will loudly and vigorously
argue that the path advocated will make the problem FAR worse
and not better. Hopefully we don't get to the point where I
have actual data to prove that.<br>
</font></font></p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/26/2017 1:34 PM, Stephanie Perrin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:27ea660a-cf4f-046c-48da-ad619cc1b5fe@mail.utoronto.ca"><font
size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">As for privacy proxy
solving the problem, it does not. Over collection is not
solved by providing a proxy in the third party disclosure
mechanism. It is still over-collection, disproportionate to
needs.</font></font></blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
--
John Bambenek</pre>
</body>
</html>