[At-Large] Issue Report on Thick Whois

Antony Van Couvering avc at avc.vc
Wed Nov 23 16:11:32 UTC 2011

Sorry you feel that way. I've been saying the same thing since 1998.  As FUD it has been remarkably ineffective. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 23, 2011, at 2:47, Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz at iks-jena.de> wrote:

> * Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>> Thin Whois is an historical abomination - it was slipped through by Network Solutions as a way to keep all the customer data for themselves when their monopoly was broken up. 
>> It is bad for legitimate searchers, because registrars may or may not be findable or helpful
>> It is bad for privacy, because registrars are less secure -- plus I'm sure some of them have been mining their own whois data and either using it themselves or spamming.  
>> It's very bad for registrants (assuming anyone in ALAC cares) because in a business failure, your records of what you own, in what name, etc., are all gone. 
>> Whatever your policy position, a thick Whois is better because then policy can be applied to it.  
> I'd like to comment this claims with the only approbriate word: FUD.
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

More information about the At-Large mailing list