>>Ah come on… dont’t give me that, answer my question without a lecture, been working with this for more than 20 years so please dont use that ignorant “do you understand”…
I know very well how this is working...

Then why ask that question? So many of the things I read in this thread appear to demonstrate a lack of experience in practical situations where privacy is violated(rightly AND wrongly). I don't know you or what you spent 20 years doing, I am only addressing the points you brought up.


>>So I have heard but none hava managed to stop it and they are harming innocent people everyday with there scams but apparently not important...

It is important, and the fact that it hasn't been addressed yet is a direct consequence of the large amount of Internet abuse compared to the small number of people equipped to investigate it.

>>Have you ever thought about that the level of respect arise from the level of respect from the anti-abuse community towards the ones who can and will help if they are shown the respect they should have? I think this is a two-way problem which in the last ICANN meetings have been in initiatives  to help and the dialog has been open and positive. A change are needed on both sides absolutely

I have no history participating in those communities, and I have almost no history posting to this list. I am mostly too busy to read all the longwinded emails exchanged here, but this thread was just so off-base that I had to respond. It seems that people here use an Internet where cybercrime doesn't exist and isn't a concern. That was what concerned me. I don't know almost any of you and I'm not asking for your respect. The lack of concern for the major issue of cyber crime is what moved me to post. If there was proper consideration given to that issue within this group, I'd probably disappear back into the ether




On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:20 PM, benny@nordreg.se <benny@nordreg.se> wrote:

> On 14 Feb 2017, at 18:59, allison nixon <elsakoo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>So you are saying that none of this spam are not originating from whois harvesting?
>
> Do you understand how spam emails are harvested? WHOIS is one source of emails, and there are many other sources of emails that are subsequently fed into botnets, "lead lists" et cetera. Shutting off the spigot for one source of emails is unlikely to make any significant impact in the volume of spam you, or the average person will receive. And if the email WHOIS was deliberately disclosed by a company or person, that e-mail will also be on their website and will still be spammed. The only category of people who would be harmed exclusively by this WHOIS status quo are people who made a foolish mistake and didn't intend to disclose something publicly.

Ah come on… dont’t give me that, answer my question without a lecture, been working with this for more than 20 years so please dont use that ignorant “do you understand”…
I know very well how this is working...

>
> It's a far more effective solution to start an investigation against these scammers that send emails and snailmail to registrants making false claims about their domain expiration. That should have happened years ago, honestly.

So I have heard but none hava managed to stop it and they are harming innocent people everyday with there scams but apparently not important...

>
> >>So since that is only a small part of the problem as you state it then we shall not do the effort to reduce it as a part of the change we want?
> >>I am trying to understand the viewpoint and the argument for letting public whois info being used to generate spam and scams as less important here
>
> Because the anti-abuse community are simply members of the public. There appears to be a low level of respect given here for the efforts of that community, so I have a corresponding low level of confidence that continued access to this data will be allowed.
>

Have you ever thought about that the level of respect arise from the level of respect from the anti-abuse community towards the ones who can and will help if they are shown the respect they should have? I think this is a two-way problem which in the last ICANN meetings have been in initiatives  to help and the dialog has been open and positive. A change are needed on both sides absolutely

--
Med vänliga hälsningar / Kind Regards / Med vennlig hilsen

Benny Samuelsen
Registry Manager - Domainexpert

Nordreg AB - ICANN accredited registrar
IANA-ID: 638
Phone: +46.42197080
Direct: +47.32260201
Mobile: +47.40410200




--
_________________________________
Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.