[At-Large] WHOIS must die
icann-list at sorehands.com
Sat Nov 26 03:46:21 UTC 2011
> A claim was made that land records are universally public - I
> demonstrated a counter example and thus showed that that claim is false.
No, the claim is correct. You provide an example where the information is
obfuscated. If the claim was correct, there would be no need for
> 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.
No, again this is not an issue of guilt, but an issue of responsible
parties and parties in control. No different from corporate registrations,
copyright registrations, trademark registrations, property records. There
is no guilt associated with this, but that the party who is the
contact/responsible party should be made public for the purpose of
contact, licensing, or liability.
> 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
> 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.
So. This means there is choice. There are other choices, such as wordpress.
> 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.
It is required that a candidate for government office is required to
publicly identify themselves, does that mean that they are a class that
has been deemed criminal. Never mind, bad example.
As the other owners identified above, they are not deemed classes of
criminals, but it has been determined that their identities and contact
information should available to the public.
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large