[At-Large] Issue Report on Thick Whois

[James S. Tyre]

> Interestingly, the European Court of Justice ruled today, in a unrelated case, that
> privacy is a fundamental right that cannot be superseded by other interests, and
> certainly not in a disproportionate manner.

As you say, unrelated.  But nice, very nice.

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-11/cp110126en.pdf

http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=Submit&numaff=C-70/10

--
James S. Tyre
Law Offices of James S. Tyre
10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512
Culver City, CA 90230-4969
310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
jstyre at jstyre.com
Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://www.eff.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-
> lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Vande Walle
> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 9:58 AM
> To: At-Large Worldwide
> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Issue Report on Thick Whois
> 
> On 24/11/11 16:59, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> > I appreciate the previous reference made that notes that real estate
> > ownership in most countries is public information. So society has had
> > no problems with public access to contact information for real
> > addresses, Why should the rules be different for virtual addresses?
> 
> Over here, if you want to access real estate ownership , you have to file a request
> with an official registry through a legal officer (notary).  It is not available for
> everyone over the Internet. It is public, yes. But it will take you some effort to get
> the information.
> This is by design.
> 
> > Your PoV is based on theory and wishful thinking; theirs is based on
> > actual investigations and dealing with the consequences of hidden or
> > obfuscated WHOIS.
> 
> Interestingly, the European Court of Justice ruled today, in a unrelated case, that
> privacy is a fundamental right that cannot be superseded by other interests, and
> certainly not in a disproportionate manner.
> 
> Of course, ICANN is a USG contractor and most of the gTLDs are based in the US.
> Hence, US laws apply. I admit that claims that the current policy is "breaking the
> law" or unconstitutional do not hold water, because these contracts between registries
> and registrants in gTLDs are legal from a US POV.  The extend to which these contract
> provisions  are binding when the sale happens outside the US remains to be tested in
> court. AFAIK, no-one has ever sued an European registrar about these contract terms. I
> guess registrants prefer to go the ccTLD route if they have privacy concerns, rather
> than spending thousands in a court case.
> 
> You will notice that the one gTLD based in the UK has other WHOIS policies, respecting
> local and EU laws on privacy. I have yet to hear a complaint that their policy is
> preventing LEAs to do their work.
> 
> Patrick
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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