My only comments are that in the case of the campaign fliers you know the purpose and the general source of the document, which adds legitimacy to it's value. The actual writer of the content is then just a collateral issue. Similarly I believe the recommendation for Whois data having a last verified date would also encourage this. Also campaign fliers have a defined limited purpose and expiry date, which is not the case of Whois. There have been concerns in the past of Whois data being used for purposes not intended (eg. harvested by spammers), which should be balanced with concerns that Whois contacts should always be up to date and be accessible for investigations 24/7. Stepping away from the Whois issues, I agree with the article that for blogs and anonymous comments there is no context or verification, so the actual writer of these becomes important in serious circumstances. However this should be balanced with the reasonableness of the situation and the common sense of the reader should also be taken into account... *"false and defamatory speech openly published will provoke counter speech and lead to correction; the truth will ultimately prevail. (Justice Louis Brandeis: “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”)" ** * Due to the vastness of the Internet though it may take an unacceptable amount of time for this truth to prevail. Regards Cintra On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>wrote:
....hmmmmmm, some ideas that might shine a light on the continuing WHOIS debate....perhaps....
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/anonymity-and-the-dark-side-...
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en