On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>

<snip>

>
> Hmm....not sure about the surveillance part, but i can say yes to possible
> spamming. Nevertheless i think we just need to weight the option. Is it
> better to have an up-to-date whois or not
>
>
> By "the surveillance interests", Milton meant groups like law enforcement
> agencies, perhaps rights holders, etc.
>
> The crux of Milton's point is that whois responsiveness is mainly important
> for stakeholders that have surveillance as their overriding value.

I'd like to remind everyone what WHOIS is/was supposed to be used for,
to contact network resource holders in cases of issues that affect
other networks/users negatively.

So it's not just "the man", who needs actual contact data in WHOIS.

If you have a TLD in a highly regulated industry like .bank for
instance, you want actual verifiable contact data in WHOIS, not
privacy/proxy registrations.

> Stakeholders that value privacy and due process and the rule of law may (but
> there is room to argue of course) disagree with surveillance interests on
> this as well as on many other things.

Can stakeholder who value privacy disagree that the original intent of
Public Network Databases like WHOIS is to provide contact data for
those who hold public network resources?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel