RE: [ga] Bulk WHOIS Data Issue

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

For those who want to be "unlisted" in the telephone white pages listing in the U.S., they pay a special fee. There is no counterpart that I am aware of in the "yellow pages" which is businesses, institutions, organizations, and even individuals who advertise, who hold themselves out to communicate with the public through this medium. 

We really don't know at this  point FOR SURE how many registrants fit which category.  I strongly suspect that at least 80% of .com; .net; .org; .info; .biz are businesses, organizations, institutions, or entities/individuals who are buying names and holding them for resale/warehousing.  It is unclear how many registrants are "individuals"  in generic TLDs or in ccTLDS [Some ccTLDs don't accept ind. registration/others do]. 
 
In any case, an analysis, even rough, of this breakdown would be useful information, even if estimated.  

The WHOIS TF co-chairs have asked the registrar/registry constituency representatives in the TF how they might provide even roughly responsive answers/statistics. This is a work in progress. Do not read into this request that the registries and registrars have agreed to any kind of analysis, only that that the request has been made inside the TF. 

Any analysis, or statistics would be greatly appreciated by the WHOIS TF as a more than useful data point... (s).



-----Original Message-----
From: William X Walsh [mailto:william@wxsoft.info]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 6:29 AM
To: William S. Lovell
Cc: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue


Wednesday, Wednesday, April 17, 2002, 9:10:37 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> Absurdity reaches new heights.  One can also keep one's name out of the
> phone book by not having a phone, or out of the Motor Vehicle Department's
> lists by having neither a driver's license nor a car. But both of those 
> entities
> have procedures for protecting their user's privacy. The Internet, or indeed
> a domain name, are rapidly becoming necessary parts of doing business, and
> indeed a healthy means for self expression by private citizens. To 
> suggest that
> one must necessarily give away all rights of privacy just because some 
> registrar
> sees yet one more way to squeeze out a buck is unconscionable.

Just as there are examples supporting your view, there are better
ones supporting the opposite view.

In the US, every state makes property ownership information available
as a matter of public record.  They are required by statute to provide
that information in bulk format for a fee, and there are companies out
there who specialize in providing that data in a searchable and
downloadable database format.

You cannot own property without having it listed publicly.  If you
want to own it and protect your privacy, it is entirely up to you to
do what is necessary to do that, by forming a shell company for
instance.

Access to those databases are not expensive at all, as a matter of
fact.

When you own property, people have the right to be able to get that
information.  The same with a domain name, which is the internet form
of "property."

-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
--
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

--
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

--
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