[At-Large] Issue Report on Thick Whois

Christian de Larrinaga cdel at firsthand.net
Mon Nov 28 17:51:12 UTC 2011

Will ICANN contracts really take precedence over local laws and regulations? 

I can see Proxies acting as trustees of registrants and this being regularised locally to support both user choice and user security in a local context. 

As trustees Proxies should be recognisably trustable and this tends to suggest they have to sit at the local jurisdictional layer in terms of policy. So my point is that ICANN needs to make space so that local policy can flourish and spend its efforts on co-ordination, best practice more than on prescription. 


On 28 Nov 2011, at 17:09, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:

> * Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> Thanks. Regarding proxy registrations, some people read the current 
>> contracts as not allowing them, but that is moot at this point, since 
>> they have been going on for a long time now and ICANN has never tried 
>> to stop them. Certainly for .net and .com, it is far too late to put 
>> the genie back in the bottle. So no change from thin to thick whois 
>> is going to alter the current situation. Or at least, that is how I read it.
> It's a matter of interpretation. Proxies "replace" the Domain owner, so they
> *are* the domain holder in the contract model of ICANN. OTOH privacy
> services hide some of the required records in the WHOIS data. Lacking a
> formal definition within ICANN, privacy services produce incorrect entries.
> _______________________________________________
> 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