Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com>]

Hello,

--- Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>   The legal costs as a result of the UDRP I would argue now much
> higher
> than without the UDRP.  In any event George, I do understand your

Firms have a choice, and acting rationally they would choose the lowest
cost means to effect a desired outcome. Without the public WHOIS info,
one would need to seek a subpoena much too often to counter abusive
behaviour, without the ability to sort things out privately with the
other party. It would be a make work project for lawyers, wasting
thousands of dollars. OR, folks would have to suffer greater amounts of
damages, before having to seek out the subpoena (i.e. if it costs
$5,000 for a subpoena, if my damages were only $3,000 it wouldn't make
sense to seek a subpoena). $5,000 might be a low estimate, given
international elements of these matters (e.g. a person seeking a
subpoena in Toronto for a domain registered in Italy to a registrant in
Brazil).

> argument.  I do believe that Privacy trumps Whois information listed
> in a registration of a Domain Name.  Hence the need for a UDRP

Why would privacy trump taking responsibility for one's domain in front
of society? I think that's the political issue, whether there is
someone who's taking responsibility for behaviour originating from a
domain. Owning a domain is inherently a public act, in my view. If
you're a public actor, you've already made the choice of going into the
public arena, and the privacy argument is moot. Users within a domain
name (e.g. individual email address holders) aren't required to provide
their details to the public at large -- just the owner of the domain
itself. 

If someone truly wants anonymity, they can appoint a lawyer or someone
else to hold the domain name "in trust" on their behalf. Then,
trademark holders, or other parties, can contact the true domain name
holder's representative as required. That representative would be
responsible for the affairs and damage arising from the domain. Good
and responsible domain users wouldn't have to pay that representative
very much, since they wouldn't cause that representative to suffer any
damage. Abusive registrants would have to pay a high price for that
privacy, just like high risk drivers pay more for car insurance. It's
economically desirable to shift the costs of that abusive behaviour to
abusers, and not to society at large. By allowing abusive people to
have anonymity for "free", it shifts the costs of their abuse to
someone else. Why should all the non-abusive people face those costs?
The benefits of absolute privacy for 100% of domain holders are just
not that great (most people will give up their privacy if Amazon.com
offers them a $5 coupon, or a chance to win a lottery -- remember
this!).

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html