[At-Large] WHOIS must die
karl at cavebear.com
Sat Nov 26 01:29:26 UTC 2011
On 11/25/2011 05:01 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> Ah contradiction rather than debate - have you seen the Monty Python
>> sketch about this?
>> I'll give you an assignment - show me the record in the public archives
>> that shows the controlling beneficial ownership of the property known as
>> "Martin's Beach" near Half Moon Bay California.
> Oh, OK. You're arguing that since there is one instance in which the
> required owner information in real estate registries isn't there, the
> whole idea of asking for any owner information at all is a waste of time.
A claim was made that land records are universally public - I
demonstrated a counter example and thus showed that that claim is false.
The larger issue, of course, is that you and others are arguing
guilt-by-class: that name registrants are, necessarily to be treated as
criminals even without accusation, even without presentation of facts,
even without trial of those facts before an impartial observer.
And from that guilt you strip domain name registrants of privacy rights.
In other words: But for the fact that one acquires a domain name a
person is stripped of privacy protections.
This forfeiture occurs even if that person never even uses that domain name.
That's not due process. Instead it is something from Savonarola.
It is no wonder that people are moving their web presence to relative
privacy havens, like Facebook. It is indeed sad that compared to ICANN,
Facebook is considered a better protector of privacy.
There has also been presented an argument that registrants have given
away privacy because of the terms of their registration agreements.
Given that ICANN is a monopoly provider the registration agreement is
essentially a contract of adhesion - a weak vehicle - and far from a
real arms-length negotiated agreement.
More information about the At-Large