On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Rod Keys wrote:

 > Hi Mark & Ian

I'm sure Mark will do a better job, but ..

 > Whilst I appricate your comments picture this scene. I have purchased some
 > goods on line and several days later they have not arrived. I try to ring
 > them but alas no answer or worse still the phone is disconnected. Their web
 > site lists their mailing address is a PO Box. What fall back as a consumer
 > do I have? however if the address details are available where they cannot be
 > hidden I at least have some redress and this has happened to me. I was able
 > to go to the police and they followed it up and guesswhat I got my money
 > back.

As seemed pretty clear from Mark's post, there's no impediment to law
enforcement bodies obtaining full database information as/when required;
I expect that this would apply to consumer protection authorities also.

I feel any inconvenience a few people may suffer in not getting 'instant
results' from whois queries would be more than outweighed by inhibiting
unconscionable practices of some registrars or other would-be s[pc]ammers.

Cheers, Ian


 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: "Ian Smith" <smithi&#167;nimnet.asn.au>
 > To: "Mark Hughes" <effectivebusiness&#167;pplications.com.au>
 > Cc: "Jo Lim" <jo.lim&#167;auda.org.au>; "Dns Discussion Listserver"
 > <dns&#167;auda.org.au>
 > Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 5:18 PM
 > Subject: Re: [DNS] Comments on draft whois policy
 > 
 > 
 > > On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Mark Hughes wrote:
 > >
 > > [snip]
 > >
 > >  > As there are clear benefits but no identifiable downside, I strongly
 > support
 > >  > removing "Registrant Street" from the publicly visible whois data.
 > >
 > > Well made arguments Mark; smells good to me (fwiw!)
 > >
 > > Cheers, Ian

[snip]