[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Request to Move RFC 954 to Historic Status



"Derek J. Balling" <dredd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> That Chileans (in the real-world example given) cannot include certain
> information on the WHOIS record does *not* mean by default that
> including it in WHOIS is "bad", and when writing a new policy
> document, that document should not consider it bad just because XX% of
> the countries have laws forbidding it.

In this case, the reason didn't seem to be laws, but a privacy policy.

A new policy document could discuss that problem and argue that the
positive effects of publishing contact information generally outweigh
the negative effects, to make people reconsider their policies.

If the motivation behind the privacy policy is to reduce spam, then
they need to do some research.  Most spam research I've read
(including the recent CDT study [1]) indicate that whois databases
aren't used as a major source of spam addresses, and the benefits of
having working whois when tracking down spam are immense.

Also, some countries have registries that bogusly claim the reason is
local laws, which is another reason to not codify that whois is bad in
a document (registries may simply say laws forbid it, so they won't
have to support the infrastructure required).

Finally, even when there are valid laws that forbid this, having the
policy part of 954 be updated could be used as input to change these
laws, for the benefit of Internet users.

[1] http://www.cdt.org/speech/spam/030319spamreport.shtml