[At-Large] Impressions from the Whois-Review
karl at cavebear.com
Wed Feb 2 23:03:07 UTC 2011
On 02/02/2011 12:11 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> There certainly should be a balance. But when there are a billion
> Internet users, and thousands of individual vanity domain registrants,
I do not accept the "vanity" distinction.
Certainly "ibm.com" is a vanity.
So is "iecc.com" as is "auerbach.com".
Indeed pretty much anything with intended semantic content can be
classed as a vanity.
And even if vanity were somehow bad - a conception that kinda got burned
at the stake in Florence some centuries back - why should that matter?
A right to privacy exists whether a person is acting out of vanity or
out of some altruistic impulse.
I've proposed what I believe is a balanced, fair, and reasonably
inexpensive procedure for whois access (one that I believe might
possibly be operated entirely by software.)
- That the person making an inquiry provide the following things which
would be recorded into a permanent record and also provided to the data
subject contemporaneously with the data access.
+ Provide an accurate identification to a legally cognizable
person or legally created entity (such as a corporation) and that that
identification be backed by trustworthy credentials (the type and form
of the credentials would be recorded, but not any critical items such as
credit card numbers or the like, if used.) For those who tend to use
this process frequently, such as trademark attorneys or anti-spam
fighters, this might be done through some sort of pre-arrangement, which
would save money and time for everyone involved.
+ Provide a statement of the rights that the person making the
inquiry believes he has in the domain name.
+ Provide a statement of how those rights are being injured by the
domain name, backed by evidence that that injury is in fact occurring.
+ Post some amount of money with the registrar (or some other third
party) (this money could be provided through some pre-arrangement,
perhaps with a discount, for those who tend to make several inquiries,
people such as trademark attorneys or anti-spam advocates.)
+ To cover the costs to the accused domain name should the
accusation be shown to be made without grounds.
+ To cover the costs of validating the identification and
- That every few months that the record of data inquiries be processed
and published to the public giving tallies of who is making the most
inquiries, how many were based on what kind of grounds (trademark
accusation, etc), how many were rejected as being baseless. Similarly
the report would show which domains were most inquired about. The
purpose of this report would be to help reveal those who abuse the
system, but on the inquiry side and also what domains are exhibiting the
most suspicious behavior.
More information about the At-Large