[At-Large] Private v. Public.

Bill Silverstein icann-list at sorehands.com
Mon Jan 21 23:58:30 UTC 2013

In the USA, and many other places, if one creates a corporation, registers
a fictitious business name, or buys property, they are required to make
the information regarding the people behind it public. That is currently
required for a domain name.

While there are mechanisms for hiding this public disclosure, they are the
exceptions not the rule. In addition, when you do use these mechanisms,
they can have legal consequence, or at the very least give a negative
inference as to the intent of the users of these mechanisms.

A domain name is not a requirement to speak anonymously on the internet.

On the other hand, having  the information public would reduce the amount
bad actors. For examples, companies running a web site, scamming people,
closing it down, opening another. Making it easier to track spammers. 
Individuals, not law enforcement does quite a bit of this. Ever hear of
Spamhaus? I had done this type of investigative work, which led to the
spammer receiving a 47 month sentence.

But limiting access to the common people, you limit the ability of law
enforcement. Ever hear of neighborhood watch?

> On 01/21/2013 02:36 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>> You're being FAR FAR too narrow, and the identification measures you
>> want
>> are not just for trademark holders,
>> As a consumer, I demand a contact point of a website name
> And if your demand is not met to your satisfaction then you have the
> total choice to refrain from using that website.
> We ought not to sacrifice the privacy of others simply because you (I
> say "you" in the generic sense rather than you personally) do not
> exercise discretion in your choice of network partners.
> In addition the claim that you are "entitled" falls flat when you are
> not willing to concede that those who whose privacy you are trying to
> penetrate do not deserve fair process, including your identity and
> reason for your inquiry.
>> If this is just to be a tool for IP lawyers, with the rest of us
>> "curious"
>> peons tossed access to nothing more than deliberately obfuscated data,
>> then
>> I'm not onboard and this is a waste. Trademarks are amongst the least
>> useful reasons for WHOIS accuracy.
> The argument you are making is that curiosity trumps privacy; that is
> something that I do not accept.
>> (I might note in passing that WHOIS data has already escaped its
>>> proper use.  I run several websites on behalf of non-profit
>>> historical preservation groups.  And the WHOIS information has
>>> apparently
>>> been merged into AT&T's directory assistance to the degree that if one
>>> is looking for the railroad station in San Jose, California [10
>>> largest city in the US] they get my home phone number - I received one
>>> of
>>> those calls at 5:30am today.)
>> That problem would not have been solved one shred by demanding that AT&T
>> prove that it was AT&T. And it sounds like your railroad problem is one
>> of
>> accuracy and stupidity, not acceptable use. IMO.
> AT&T probably bought the data from someone who simply mined the WHOIS
> records.  Had my procedures been in place that someone would have had to
> make a concrete accusation and back it by demonstrable evidence.  I
> would have been able to challenge that accusation and collect the $$
> bond for my trouble.
> Or, if they had used the route that I outlined for the merely curious
> then the phone number would have been simply the area code.
> 	--karl--
> _______________________________________________
> 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