Karl,
> If you or NTIA can issue an order, contractual or otherwise, which
> obligates NSI to open the database under pain of legal penalties,
> then your or NTIA have control.
>
Ah, if you mean to say that one who has the power to back up
what they say, has _control_, then absolutely, I agree. I didnt
recognize that you favoured tautologies.
> > Q: Was privacy a concern of anyone who voluntarily registered for
> > a domain name 15 years ago? 10 years ago? 5 years ago?
> >
> > A: No, your honour.
>
> Did you articulate a specific concern about your privacy when you
> registered for your Social Security Card, when you filed your income tax,
> when you filed for welfare?
The question is, did you consider NSI to be bound by
*governmental* regard for privacy when you registered?
> > Q: Is there any information in the DNS which has not been publicly
> > accessible heretofore?
> >
> > A: No, your honour.
>
> The data has been made visible in violation of the act for the entire
> life of the Internet.
Did you register a protest when you applied for a domain name?
> Under your approach, if one engages in a wrongful practice for a
> long enough time, then that practice is OK?
Its not an 'approach' at all, imo; its real-politik. Most national
boundaries, for instance, are the result of, shall we say, 'adverse
possession.' There is little to be gained by casting this state of
affairs as wrong or right; there is, as you have clarified, whether one
party is able to back up what it says harder or faster than another.
If the other party feels the state of affairs deserves to change, then
it *organizes its abilites to back up what it wishes to say, and gives
it a shot.
> I kinda prefer governments to obey the laws.
It sounds as if you'd like a govt to protect its citizens from
themselves: "Well, NSI *said I could get something for (next to)
nothing..." If the citizens dont know what they are worth, are they
worth protecting? Well, maybe so -- but is anybody organizing to
see the change through?
kerry
