[At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board

[Evan Leibovitch]

Adam Peake wrote:
> I am quite sure spammers, others trying to con, 
> steal (whatever), abuse WHOIS.  But I am equally 
> sure there are many (as many, as few? I am not 
> able to guess) who provide inaccurate (or 
> un-helpful) information for privacy reasons. We 
> are generally advised not to put personal 
> information online.  WHOIS is contrary to best 
> practise.
>   

Well, of course, especially when the "privacy" is desired because you're
trying to con and steal and WHOIS.

Sorry, but refusing to be identified -- when using a facility primarily
used to _provide_ identity -- seems absurd.

Registrars can perhaps offer proxy/escrow services, then, as part of
their arsenal of tools to sell registrants for that kind of thing. You
can get an unlisted phone number, but you pay for that and the phone
company still maintains correct records on who owns a certain line.

In other fields of public communications, people who want a buffer
between themselves and others -- celebrities, victims, whistleblowers --
obtain agents to act as that buffer. But they still need to provide
accurate information to their agent, and the agent is part of a chain of
responsibility that is not obliged to protect those who use the buffer
as a means to lie, cheat or misrepresent themselves.

The right to privacy is not an absolute one -- it has numerous limits
and is often subservient to many other human rights (such as the legal
right to confront one's accuser).

The right to maintain privacy, while maintaining the freedom to abuse
the privacy rights of others, is neither best practise nor a suitable
excuse for maintaining inaccurate information. Many people would
certainly like to give fake information on their drivers' licenses or
passports for various privacy-related reasons, and would certainly do so
if certain laws did not prohibit that form of "privacy".

- Evan