[ga-sys] Providing a "Nominee" Service

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 21:32:38 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 10:15:05 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

> > If you don't want those details visible, then you can contract with
> > someone to register the domain for you.  They then become the
> > registrant/admin contact.  Your identity is protected; your contract
> > with them protects your rights to the domain; they provide the service
> > of a legal point of contact for the registrant/admin-contact.
<snip for brevity>

> You are of course right that I can also make a
> separate contract with any third party, e.g. my lawyer. But
> I don't think forcing people to pay more and have two contracts
> is a viable approach to privacy issues.

Hi Alexander

Whilst I agree that "forcing people" is not a good policy, the fact is that
you *could* contract with a registrar or third party to register a domain
name, or hold a domain name, on your behalf.

In fact, this is/was quite normal in Australia and the UK in relation to
shareholdings (what the American calls stockholders, afaik).  Any investor
can buy shares from a broker or a merchant bank with the instructions that
they be held "in a nominee name".  The agent then registers the shares in a
name like "Barclay Nominees" and keeps their own private register of the
true owners.

One advantage is that any dividends, scrip issues, etc become "managed".
The downside is that there is a cost for this service.  Kent's point was
that, done on a wide-scale, there would be economies.  We have to agree with
that.  That way there's only one relevant contract.

But Kent has sidestepped two problems.  One is that "nominee" service is not
being provided, at least one any scale.  The service is potentially
available right now.  OpenSRS, or any of their resellers, could probably do
it easily.  Certainly the resellers can set up multiple identities for each
customer.

If this is not being done, it might be because the domain name holders
are more interested in price savings than in having a private, spam-free
"premium" service.  I am sure that registrars, and other third-parties,
would jump into the market if there was sufficient demand.  That might yet
happen.

You have already indicated the other problem.  Why should a person have
to go to that additional expense and inconvenience just to protect their
privacy?  In a modern society like ours, there should be enough respect for
the consumer to require that only information necessary for the effective
functioning of the internet be mandatory.

All other data should be discretionary i.e. "opt in".

I don't see the problem except the minimal cost in registration and the loss
of value -- to Registrars -- of the whois data.  As long as it is "across
the
board" for all registrars, they could just adjust their prices a fraction.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss








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