> There has been a lot of handwaving about whether there is or is
> not control. But if NTIA can order NSI to open the database to the
> public or to transfer it to another party, that's a pretty strong
> indication of "control".
>
I can order NSI to open the database, but that hardly indicates 'control.'
And before we move on to the next nit, when NSI *opens the
database without protest, that is not going to prove control either -
just that even Jim Rutt can tell a box from a hole in the ground, and
when USG offers him a way out, he's able to take it with thanks.
It's a charade, in short, about on the order of the Senate
retroactively approving surcharges... You want rule of law? Good ol
USG will give you rule of law, and defy you to prove otherwise.
> And for the Privacy Act, I would assert that one of the biggest
> elements of control is whether the Government has the ability to
> keep the data private or not. And an order to publish or transfer
> is certainly pretty strong evidence of belief by NTIA that NTIA has
> that kind of control.
>
Q: Was privacy a concern of anyone who voluntarily registered for
a domain name 15 years ago? 10 years ago? 5 years ago?
A: No, your honour.
Q: Is there any information in the DNS which has not been publicly
accessible heretofore?
A: No, your honour.
===
Now, having said that, is USG going to order NSI to *continue to
update Whois?
kerry
