On 2/13/2004 12:07 PM Rick Wesson noted that:
> Your privacy argument mearly pushes the responsibility for
> determining accuracy on law-enforcement.
<snip>
>
> While your examples are initially compelling simple math proves that your
> examples, while all true, amount to annoyances. The costs to the public,
> registrars and registries are miniscule to the fraud perpetrated on the
> Internet every day. If your examples were costing the anyone of the actors
> in the millions every day I'm sure the issues would be addressed; However,
> since your examples are self-centered industry pain that amounts to mabe
> [and i'm stretching things] to damage in the hundreds-of-thousands on an
> annual basis, well that a cost of doing business.
>
> If you could find some examples of industry pain in the level of millions
> per day, as is fraud carried out on the Internet, I'm sure they would have
> more relevance on this topic.
Rick - your arguement is equally spurious as it assumes that a)
registrars have existing responsibilities to guaranteeing data
accuracy and b) that increasing this invented onus is the best way to
solve the problem.
This is patently ridiculous and terribly self-interested.
The existing system of monitoring and enforcement, which has the
benefit of being continually improved, has much to commend it. I did
not get into business to babysit registrants. Either they can provide
us with accurate data or they cannot. Those that are unable to live up
to their contractual agreement should have those contracts revoked.
It need not be more complex than that.
--
-rwr
"Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
All life is an experiment.
The more experiments you make the better."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ross.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 303 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registrars/attachments/20040213/7f9fe3bb/ross.vcf>