Ken,
In message <v03110702b35ad9d4ecea@[63.14.58.237]>, Ken Freed writes:
> Regarding NSI's "ownership" of the DNS database, perhaps a more
> fundamental question is whether the contact information within Whois
> belongs to the domain holder or the database operator. This has
> serious implications for those who now are amasssing marketing
> databases.
That's a very good point, albeit sligtly besides it :-)-O. Each
registrant of course could only hold claim to it's own record.
> Consider: If my own contact data belong to me, and my data is added
> to your database without my express permission, for me, that's
> property theft (which is why I favor "opt-in" over "opt-out" to
> regulate "profiling" by email marketeers).
Nonsense.
This is like any other customer data base, you buy something, you get
into the data base of the vendor. It is absolutely clear that the
databases are intellectual property of the vendors.
Even in Germany any vendor can *MAINTAIN* a data base, it's only the
*ACCESS* by *OTHERS* that might be regulated by the data protection
acts.
> By registering a DN, I grant you permission to put me in your
> database, but do you have the right to share my data with others?
Exactly.
> Depends on our agreement when I register.
And on the law of the land.
> In the case of the Whois database, I want that info to be public for
> e-business websites, for accountability, but I'm not sure there
> ought to be universal exposure of all domain holders.
That's why the SOA data is there.
> A teenager who buys a domain to talk about Barbie dolls should not
> have her home address published. We must defend against all kinds
> of predators.
Actually, you might be wrong here too. A minor might not even be
allowed by law to undertake such a transaction unassisted.
In any case we come to a practical problem, how do you police that
even with only several hundred registrations per day?
> We have an opportunity here to set a healthier precedent for
> individual privacy. Will we do it?
No, that has nothing to do with it. It is purely a matter of whether
the USG actually *WANTS* the data (seems to me NSI does), and whether
it can prevail in demanding it. But because of contractual obligation,
not because of non-Intellectual Property.
el
