[At-Large] Issue Report on Thick Whois
icann-list at sorehands.com
Wed Nov 23 03:21:58 UTC 2011
> On 11/22/2011 03:53 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>>> Sonme of us believe that there ought not to be a domain name whois at
>> That "us" is almost exclusively registrants, a set of vested interests
> That's a rather pejorative way to dismiss the privacy concerns of over
> 100,000,000 registrants.
These are registrant of domain names, domain names which by the current
rules require that they provide accurate whois/ownership information.
>> within ICANN whose voices are heard through their own representative
>> constituencies. That we now have such a lack of compliance in (and
>> for) WHOIS indicates that such interests have held sway so far.
> That's one conclusion. The other, and the one that I believe is more
> accurate is that many people, perhaps even a majority, who have domain
> names believe that their relationships with their registrars are none of
> ICANN's business. The word for that is "privacy".
No, the word for that is violating the terms of the registration
agreement, a contract which they voluntarily entered into. There is
multiple ways to have a blog and/or e-mail address which does not require
them to register their domain name.
Just like buying real property in most counties within the USA, buying a
domain name requires the identification of the owner of that property.
> I am amazed with the notion that the ALAC, which purports to represent
> "the internet user" is so unquestioningly willing to require that the
> privacy of those users be sacrificed to satisfy the prying eyes of
> anyone who wants to look 24x7x365.
Are you amazed with the notion that the ALAC, which purports to represent
"the internet user" is so unquestioningly willing to require that people
who register domain names take responsibility for their use of their
Having a domain name is not a human right.
> I put forward a balanced equation that under which those who want to
> look at Whois have to make a demonstration of harm and leave their name.
> That's not as good or as balanced in which that demonstration of harm
> is adjudged by a disinterested third party, but at least it's a lot
> better than the system we have today.
What is the standard for "demonstration of harm?" Is is receiving spam? Is
it doing a whois lookup to confirm the identify of a company and their web
site? Who is to guaranty the accuracy of that information?
> So why don't even want to consider a system in which someone who wants
> to look at Whois has to leave his name, make a claim, backed by
> evidence, that a legally cognizable harm has occurred, and leave some $$
> on deposit to cover the costs to the registrant in case that claim turns
> out to be made with fraudulent intent or with reckless disregard of the
And will this person be required to pay for the harm caused by their
domain or actions related to that domain?
>> But this is At-Large, whose members have no voice elsewhere within
> And whose fault is that - Internet users once had a real voice, a real
> Most people who use the Internet and don't own domains do not, in my
>> experience, share the sentiment above.
> Maybe you should ask people whether they are willing to have their - or
> their family's - names, addresses, phone numbers, affiliations, and
> business relationships put into a worldwide database?
By registering a domain, they answered that question in the affirmative.
> Do you have children? Have you ever considered that parents might
> consider the Whois to be a Megan's Law List in reverse - in which ICANN
> requires parents to publish publish the names and addresses of
> prospective victims to predators?
That is just hyperbole.
More information about the At-Large