Re: [mailop] LOUDMOUTHS WANTED!! ICANN WHOIS Replacement Work URGENT IMPORTANT ACTION NEEDED
On 26 Mar 2017 00:20:17 - "John Levine" wrote: > Of course. But the fraction of domains registered by natural people > is quite low. And, of course, the claim that you need your own second > level domain to communicate on the Internet is ridiculous. Depends on the time horizon. If I want to be able to give people information for being able to contact me via the Internet, so that I can have a reasonable expectation of being able to make sure that this will still work in 20 years (provided I am then still alive and healthy enough to be able to use computers), how would I do that without a second level domain of my own? Greetings, Norbert ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] LOUDMOUTHS WANTED!! ICANN WHOIS Replacement Work URGENT IMPORTANT ACTION NEEDED
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017, at 13:03, Norbert Bollow wrote: > On 26 Mar 2017 00:20:17 - > "John Levine" wrote: > > > Of course. But the fraction of domains registered by natural people > > is quite low. And, of course, the claim that you need your own second > > level domain to communicate on the Internet is ridiculous. > > Depends on the time horizon. > > If I want to be able to give people information for being able to > contact me via the Internet, so that I can have a reasonable expectation > of being able to make sure that this will still work in 20 years > (provided I am then still alive and healthy enough to be able to use > computers), how would I do that without a second level domain of my own? Not only that, but if you don't want to put up with whatever any particular provider feels like offering on any particular day. Yahoo! may have been a reasonable choice at one point, but given their complete inability to secure their service over the last few years, and their reaction to the exodus was simply to disable mail forwarding. Or maybe you went with a smaller provider like Fastmail.fm's free plans? Oops, those are going away, you've gotta pay. Now maybe their prices are reasonable (I think so, I'm writing this from my own domain hosted on Fastmail), but if their prices go up tomorrow by 10x, and I still want to maintain my contacts from the last 10 years, I can do so because my name comes with me. Personally, I think it's rather silly to not have a domain that you control, as it puts you in control instead of relying on what one particular vendor chooses to offer on any particular day; the risks are the same whether you are using a free product or a paid product. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] LOUDMOUTHS WANTED!! ICANN WHOIS Replacement Work URGENT IMPORTANT ACTION NEEDED
In article <20170326220333.3c517c48@quill> you write: >If I want to be able to give people information for being able to >contact me via the Internet, so that I can have a reasonable expectation >of being able to make sure that this will still work in 20 years >(provided I am then still alive and healthy enough to be able to use >computers), how would I do that without a second level domain of my own? I know a certain number of people with e-mail addresses that haven't changed in 20 years, not at domains they own. It's probably more than the number I know with 20 year old vanity domains, and I know a lot of vain old nerds. But I can't help noticing that people keep trying to change the topic. Once again, nobody* has a problem with privacy protection for the small minority of domains registered by natural persons. The problem is that the pro-crime crowd keep demanding that all the rest be anonymous or effectively anonymous, too. R's, John * - for a version of nobody informed by going to a lot of recent ICANN meetings ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] LOUDMOUTHS WANTED!! ICANN WHOIS Replacement Work URGENT IMPORTANT ACTION NEEDED
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017, at 13:34, Neil Schwartzman wrote: > *PLEASE JOIN THE ICANN GROUP* and help us fight back against people > who are fighting *in favour* of crime. Please also take the time to understand that your needs are not my needs. I would be in favour of a WHOIS system that doesn't expose my me (and my mom) to criminals calling, emailing, and occasionally mailing the owner with fraudulent claims that something will be lost if I/she doesn't take some action, or that she needs to sign up to a search engine provider, or similar. Decent spam filters can eat a lot of it, but far from all. She's clever enough to sort out most of it, but it shouldn't be a necessary part of being on the internet just to have her own single page website and email address for her consulting business. I understand the utility of the data, I do, but it's disingenuous to suggest that only criminals would benefit from some changes here. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] LOUDMOUTHS WANTED!! ICANN WHOIS Replacement Work URGENT IMPORTANT ACTION NEEDED
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017, at 13:58, John Levine wrote: > In article <20170326220333.3c517c48@quill> you write: > >If I want to be able to give people information for being able to > >contact me via the Internet, so that I can have a reasonable expectation > >of being able to make sure that this will still work in 20 years > >(provided I am then still alive and healthy enough to be able to use > >computers), how would I do that without a second level domain of my own? > > I know a certain number of people with e-mail addresses that haven't > changed in 20 years, not at domains they own. It's probably more > than the number I know with 20 year old vanity domains, and I know > a lot of vain old nerds. 20 is relatively extreme at this stage of the internet, largely due to the fact that 20 years ago internet access wasn't as ubiquitous and the situation has changed considerably. I lost my email address(es) of that day because the provider(s) no longer exist (or in one case, ceased selling email addresses outside of other services, so the price went from $19/year to several hundred a year), after which point I bought a domain and kept it since 2000. It's not my primary address, but I can still be reached there just the same and this is important to me. Not being a target of criminals is also important to me, and insisting I publish a valid street address, phone number and email address increases my exposure to criminals. > But I can't help noticing that people keep trying to change the topic. > Once again, nobody* has a problem with privacy protection for the > small minority of domains registered by natural persons. The problem > is that the pro-crime crowd keep demanding that all the rest be > anonymous or effectively anonymous, too. Suggesting people who are interested in privacy are pro-crime is a bit silly, and I would request that you do not attach derogatory labels just because someone else happens to have a different opinion than you, unless I am welcome to make up labels for you? ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] LOUDMOUTHS WANTED!! ICANN WHOIS Replacement Work URGENT IMPORTANT ACTION NEEDED
On 03/26/2017 01:58 PM, John Levine wrote: But I can't help noticing that people keep trying to change the topic. Not changing the topic, refuting your statement that no one needs their own domain name to communicate on the Internet. Once again, nobody* has a problem with privacy protection for the small minority of domains registered by natural persons. The problem is that the pro-crime crowd keep demanding that all the rest be anonymous or effectively anonymous, too. * - for a version of nobody informed by going to a lot of recent ICANN meetings As someone who believes that privacy is useful for businesses as well as people, I don't appreciate being referred to as "pro-crime." As someone who is asserting that businesses should never have private registrations, can you please answer the following questions so that those of us who do can have a better understanding of your position? 1. What obstacles do private registration place in front of your efforts? 2. If ICANN disallows private registrations in the gTLDs, how do you cope with the inevitable rise of agents created to hold private registrations, completely outside of the ICANN sphere? Doug ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] LOUDMOUTHS WANTED!! ICANN WHOIS Replacement Work URGENT IMPORTANT ACTION NEEDED
John Levine said: "The problem is that the pro-crime crowd keep demanding that all the rest be anonymous or effectively anonymous, too." Exactly! Also, like some who are arguing against Neil Sw. on this, I too consider myself to be a very strong privacy advocate too. However what we currently have is ALREADY "the compromise" between privacy and accountability. Already , anyone who desires can have a private hidden Whois registration. But anyone who does so would need to know that there is a chance that their email will have a little bit higher percentage chance of being blocked in comparison to not having a private Whois registration (specifically, having a truthful Whois!). However if that person is doing everything else very well, then such problems are unlikely to happen. Three scenarios for having a private registration for non-criminal means have been provided. (1) The first one involves a political dissident living in a totalitarian regime. However that person would be a fool to try to run their own email with their own domain name because there would be too many moving parts... There would be providers who could be subpoenaed or forced by governments to give up that person's information. They would be much better off if they paid for an email account with email service that is specifically set up to provide anonymity and encryption and protection from governments, most likely not even using their own domain name for that email. I was reading about one such service based out of Switzerland the other day. (3) another scenario is a product launch that needs to be secret. That is understandable. However if they are doing everything else correctly and not sending unsolicited bulk email, it is very unlikely that their messages would go into the spam filter based on a private Whois alone. Also, that company can always update their Whois seconds after they launch their product. (3) the third scenario is a private individual wanting to keep his information Anonymous so as to prevent spam and solicitations from coming to that person. While that is understandable, such a person would need to live with the fact that their domain and their outgoing email is going to get a little bit less respect, all else being equal. It is insane to solve this problem by forcing everyone to be anonymous since that idea will provide aid and comfort to the spammers and criminals. If this individual is not sending unsolicited bulk email, then they will probably have very few problems on the basis of an anonymous Whois by itself, if any! But if there are any problems, then that is simply the price they have to pay for being anonymous. This is a lesser of evils... by order of magnitudes over the free pass that making all whois anonymous... would give to criminals Furthermore, making all Whois anonymous also has the negative side effect of preventing legitimate organizations from getting full credit for the good reputation they have worked hard to build up, as they played by the rules. Forcing all Whois to be anonymous tears that down, which is not fair to those companies who played by the rules. For example, with my own anti spam Blacklist, I often factor in Whois data into my whitelisting decisions. It sometimes helps me to know for positive that a newly registered domain name belongs to a legitimate organization. Forcing Universal Anonymous Whois would remove that tool from my system, thus harming good organizations. Basically what is amazing here... is that so many who are arguing for Universal Anonymous Whois.. are acting as if they were arguing against a system where private Whois registrations had already been outlawed for all this time. That is the way they talk. But the compromise they keep saying that they want.. is what we already have since Anonymous Whois is already allowed. Again, if someone using an anonymous Whois in the current system is penalized in some way then that is a lesser of evils when compared to the free pass that a universal Anonymous Whois system would give to criminals. Most of the people in this debate who are arguing my point of view are speaking from long experience of working in the anti abuse industry hands-on... some of them on a daily basis... And some of them have moved mountains to make the internet more safe. It is sad that their concerns would be so easily blown off by so many people who themselves have so greatly benefited from the work of these respected individuals. In contrast, most of the people arguing for allowing Universal Anonymous Whois don't have a clue how much of a free pass that would give to criminals. They also fail to understand that activity on the internet is not the same thing as activity confined to the privacy of your own property. Activity on the Internet is more similar to driving a car down the street and being expected to obey traffic laws and being expected to have a driver's license and registra
Re: [mailop] LOUDMOUTHS WANTED!! ICANN WHOIS Replacement Work URGENT IMPORTANT ACTION NEEDED
On 26 Mar 2017 20:58:50 - "John Levine" wrote: > In article <20170326220333.3c517c48@quill> you write: > >If I want to be able to give people information for being able to > >contact me via the Internet, so that I can have a reasonable > >expectation of being able to make sure that this will still work in > >20 years (provided I am then still alive and healthy enough to be > >able to use computers), how would I do that without a second level > >domain of my own? > > I know a certain number of people with e-mail addresses that haven't > changed in 20 years, not at domains they own. It's probably more > than the number I know with 20 year old vanity domains, and I know > a lot of vain old nerds. I don't agree that this fact (that you know people who --despite not having any way to ensure that no need to change their email address would arise-- were lucky to not have that problem) is very relevant to the question that I raised. I also disagree with the insinuation that wanting to use a domain name under your control for personal and/or family communications is necessarily a matter of vanity. > But I can't help noticing that people keep trying to change the topic. I was replying to your assertion "And, of course, the claim that you need your own second level domain to communicate on the Internet is ridiculous." Also snipped was the first sentence of my reply: "Depends on the time horizon." > Once again, nobody* has a problem with privacy protection for the > small minority of domains registered by natural persons. The problem > is that the pro-crime crowd keep demanding that all the rest be > anonymous or effectively anonymous, too. I certainly don't have any objections to the principle that domains which are in active use for any commercial purpose should not be anonymous. My objection is just against a certain overbroad argument which (in the form in which it was worded) appeared to deny that (at least for some people) there are very good reasons for wanting to use a domain name of your own for personal / family contact info. Greetings, Norbert ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] LOUDMOUTHS WANTED!! ICANN WHOIS Replacement Work URGENT IMPORTANT ACTION NEEDED
I have a hotmail account that I opened in 2000 And yes, I do see the childish style of argument that you mention. --srs > On 27-Mar-2017, at 2:28 AM, John Levine wrote: > > But I can't help noticing that people keep trying to change the topic. > Once again, nobody* has a problem with privacy protection for the > small minority of domains registered by natural persons. The problem > is that the pro-crime crowd keep demanding that all the rest be > anonymous or effectively anonymous, too. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
