[At-Large] Impressions from the Whois-Review
avri at acm.org
Wed Feb 2 22:27:29 UTC 2011
I believe there is a middle way. As a registrant-user, I just found the constant reference to vanity domains highly offensive and was showing other terms that one could use that might be equally as offensive without going anywhere near a Godwin. And yes, I know that there are many legitimate uses of the information but if it is out there for anyone to look out it will be misused, no matter what the rules say about it.
I do believe there are ways for us to have our proxies, to give correct information, and for legitimate access to the information to be possible while protecting privacy. I spent years working towards it during one of my more optimistic periods in ICANN, i.e. when I still believed we could all get along. (Actually I still believe that! Pitiful, I know.)
I did not ignore any of the stuff you think I ignored. I just mentioned several misuses that have happened to me (yes, I still have some of my whois info in the open - though I am slowing moving to a wonderful registrar that automatically proxies it - I love them). I even paid for a Skype dial-in number so I could have a true number they could call that i would never have to answer but which would give me messages. But I hate that my address is there for all to see. And since I am the type who sometimes antagonizes people (imagine that), having my address displayed so prominently is a personal liability in this age of violent crazies. It makes me uneasy.
Just imagine if all of the address information and phone numbers that are sometimes required to get user accounts were publicly displayed. Would this be a good thing? I mean it is not only registrants that sometimes do bad things. People who don't have a domain names can do bad things on the network too. For example, there are all those lovely people who send me exciting notices about the rewards and investment opportunities. They don't have domain names, but without assuming anything untoward about them as a class, I bet at least some of them are not on the up and up, no matter how sweet they might appear. So are you also suggesting that there should be a global public users list with names and addresses for all email accounts? It is the same thing as far as I can tell, it is not like they need and email account? Or is it?
On 2 Feb 2011, at 16:46, Bill Silverstein wrote:
> With due respect, you are making the same presumptions that you accuse
> John of. Firstly, the whois information is not to be used for marketing
> (see the terms). Second, you are talking about using "some word" but,
> you ignore the other part which there is truly is libel. Third, you
> ignore the commercial aspect, of you running your little (or big) online
> store and your customer has a problem. Or you are the one who is sending
> out the solicitation for the whois information, and I want to make sure
> you stop.
> You also ignore that when you register a domain name, you voluntarily
> agree to 184.108.40.206, 220.127.116.11 of the ICANN contract which requires TRUTHFUL
> information. Intentional provision of false information is fraud.
> There is a simple solution change the contract that permits a proxy
> service, but the proxy service will be liable for the use of the domain.
> That way, if web site operating using their domain name there is someone
> Free speech has a cost, it is called responsibility.
>> Dear John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
>> Why do you continue to call then vanity domains?
>> I find that as offensive as some would probably find me referring to nosy
>> commercial users who wanted to know my phone number and email so they
>> could try to sell me stuff or try to get me to transfer my domain. Or if
>> I referred to viscous lawyer users who want to scare me because I used
>> some word in my blog that they find offensive to their client.
>> With all due respect,
>> On 2 Feb 2011, at 15:11, John R. Levine wrote:
>>>> I cannot accept that there cannot be a balance between the right to
>>>> and the right to know for those harmed by an act traceable to a domain.
>>> There certainly should be a balance. But when there are a billion
>>> Internet users, and thousands of individual vanity domain registrants,
>>> is silly to argue that the two interests are of the same weight and also
>>> to argue, as many have over the past decade, that vanity registrants
>>> not be put to any extra or effort at all if they don't want to be
>>> the same as the businesses and organizations that register the vast
>>> majority of domains.
>>> I also have to say that it is not helpful when people make claims, as
>>> we've seen recently, that WHOIS is useless for tracking miscreants,
>>> is false, or that it's only used to research trivial misbehavior, which
>>> equally false. It is also unhelpful when people refuse to recognize the
>>> scale of the modern Internet, in which web hosts routinely turn down
>>> thousands of domains every day for anti-social behavior. The real
>>> surprise is that they don't make more mistakes than they do.
>>> All of my own domains have accurate WHOIS info. I use a post office box
>>> to receive my mail, so they don't show my home address, which I don't
>>> think is an unreasonable burden.
>>> John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
>>> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
>>> At-Large mailing list
>>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> 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