Re: [ga] WHOIS policy primer

["L. Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 27 Aug 2002, at 19:37, David Farrar wrote:

> There is a slight difference here.  Your phone number is always held by a
> company which has an office in the country where the phone number is for. 
> ie in New Zealand the telco Telecom or Telstra and both are required by law
> to co- operate with law enforcement agencies.
> 
> But with domain names and a thin registry you may register your name
> through a registrar based in say Iraq which is probably highly unlikely to
> co-operate with a request from the FBI.  You could put in the registrar
> contracts that they have to co-operate with the FBI but then why only force
> them to co-operate with law enforcement in one country.  So then you'd have
> to have registrars co- operate with all law enforcement agencies in the
> world ....

And the point is?  The fact remains that it is still not necessary to 
publish personal identifying information in the WHOIS.  You would still 
have to have the IP address of any offending source unless you are still 
referring to Intellectual Property issues.  If that is the case, those 
pursuing the domain name holder should still have to use the legal 
system to acquire the information, just as they would with telcos.   I can 
see no reason for publishing an unlisted phone number in the DNS 
WHOIS when the specific reason for having it unlisted is to NOT publish 
it.

Corporations hide all over the world.  Why are individuals forced to open 
themselves to all sorts of abuse from and for the benefit of corporations? 
 In addition, why should individuals be exposed to having their 
information mined for corporate abuses such as spam?

I again refer to Karl's post.  He covered it pretty darned well.

Leah
  
> 
> DPF


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html