[At-Large] Impressions from the Whois-Review

[Derek Smythe]

On 2011/02/01 02:11, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> On 01/31/2011 03:35 PM, Derek Smythe wrote:
>
>> I pointed this out previously, nobody cared to comment.
>
> OK...
>
>> What do we call it when registrars and resellers abuse the trust put
>> in them, allowing parties to register anonymously knowing full well -
>> even encouraging a certain segment of the domain owner market that
>> targets innocent parties on the net via malware/spam/fraud, yet hide
>> the existence of non-existing real end user details behind layers of
>> laywers in disprate jurisdictions, deliberately so as to frustrate law
>> enforcement that may wish to follow due process on behalf of the
>> defrauded victims (who we also supposed to be represented here)
>
> Who imposed a duty of trust on registrars and resellers?  What right -
> and I want chapter and verse, a full legal citation - gives that who the
> authority to impose those duties?
>
> If you want to pass a law imposing duties, then go for it.  Such duties
> exist merely by assertion.
>
> As for "deliberately so as to frustrate law enforcement" - an act that
> is lawful - and and registering a domain name using an hard-to-penetrate
> intermediary (such as a corporation) is a lawful act.
>
> And last time I checked there is nothing in the US Constitution - and I
> am not aware of any such provision in other constitutions - that says
> that citizens exist for the benefit of the government or must conform
> their lawful activities for the convenience of law enforcement.
>
> Closing one's windows at night also is a deliberate act that would
> frustrate a police officer who is looking for burglers.  So I guess that
> when I draw my blinds at night that I ought to be treated as a criminal?
>
> Attorney-client privilege also frustrates law enforcement.  Should we
> abandon that privilege?
>
> Let me suggest that everyone here go out and read "The Oxbow Incident"
> and consider the dangers of making accusations and executing judgment
> without affording due process.
>
> 	--karl--



http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3.3
So you scoff at this?

This is the portioned being played behind a front of lawyers:
http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3.7.7.3

http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3.7.7.9
Yet you actively target an abusive subsection of the market for your 
client base. You allow them to use fake shopfronts, spam etc.

What fascinates me is that you can have an agreement with a 
non-existent party or a party who you do not know who it is, because 
you deliberately did not want to know, yet are willing to take his 
$10/$20 knowing full well you allow this and then afford them the 
protection of your legal team.

Then the end user on the internet meets this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45487838/Balsam-v-Tucows-No-09-17625-9th-Cir-Dec-16-2010

(Off topic, in my personal experience Tucows is a fine Registrar that 
actually looks out for the end users on the net and does not condone 
deliberate abuse of their services)

So, what protection does the casual internet user, who may or may not 
be a domain owner, have?

Derek