Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

[Patrick <patrick@stealthgeeks.net>]

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Ram Mohan wrote:

> Thomas,
> xWhois is on PIR's list of possible new services.  So is OrgCloak.  Neither
> have prices or plans announced - you should ask PIR for specifics.  So
> before you make a claim about legality, might be worthwhile checking what is
> mandatory (Whois) and what is not (xWhois, OrgCloak, and a host of other
> potential, optional services).  I'm not a lawyer myself, but it seems very
> clear that you're linking two entirely different things (mandatory services
> vs. optional services).
>
> The fact of life is that TODAY, you can find out all contact information
> about any COM/NET/ORG domain from the sponsoring registrars' Whois service.

Sure it is, but the large question is if it should continue to be.
Registrants have never had an effective and/or representative voice within
any decision-making on the matter, and rather than continuing to leave it
up to the small set of vested interests within ICANN, the views of
registrants should be sought after and accounted for since it is after
all their data we are talking about. (yeah I know the chances of that
happening)

Registrars/Registries intent on profiting by selling privacy back to the
consumer as a value-add would seem to suffer a fairly significant
conflict-of-interest related to these issues. I'm in no way suggesting
that the opinions and interests of such parties who shouldn't be represented,
however to date such they seem to have be  disproportionately so.

One ICANN-accredited registrar I recently dealt with is offering to
redact contact information for an annual fee of nearly two times the cost
of registration. While one can certainly argue that the value of any service is
what someone is willing to pay for it, a simple "value-add" costing twice
what the baseline service does is ridiculous.

A much more fundamental question which has been largely ignored is
why should registrants in this day and age expect to have to pay for a
modicum of privacy? Because registrars/registries can recognize revenue?
Because it's never been officially available to registrants in the past?
Because current registrant agreements are written in such a way that if
registrants don't buy such a service and continue to take their privacy into
their own hands they run an increased risk of registration revocation?

Why is at all unreasonable to expect that like countless other organizations
such as my DSL provider, my cell provider, or the place that I buy books from
online that my information not be made public? My bookstore certainly doesn't
make my information publicly available and then offer to take it down for an
annual fee. The only possible exception I can think of is my landline
phone service, in which .28 of a base $13/mo phone bill goes to maintaining an
unlisted number.

> Finally, Whois is decreasing in relevance as the primary contact information
> outpost about all Internet users for privacy, spam, etc -- it's probably the
> most visible, but the reality is that more social data about more Internet
> users is available through private, for-sale databases than through public
> Whois.

Sure it has decreased in relevancy. Registrants have been contractually
obligated to make physical addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses
publicly available. Spammers and other parties have abused access to the
point people stopped putting accurate information in the records.

The answer to this problem is simple: the inclusion of registrant data
privacy protection provisions in relevant contracts.

For-fee approaches that are inconsistently applied among TLDs, Registrars,
or Registries will by their very nature be less useful given variances in
the services and fee structures creating an environment where
adoption will be partial, exposed data could vary and where some people will
continue to elect to populate their database entries with incorrect
information rather than paying someone for the privilege of doing so.

While such a standardized policy would doubtlessly be opposed by the small
group of organization who want to profit from starring out some entries on
a display, it would serve the greatest percentage of the Internet
community,  reducing the efficacy of spammers, while offering the best
opportunity to reverse the "relevancy" erosion that has occured.

I have nothing against people making a living or profitting through honest
and equitable efforts. Attempting to charge a customer to provide privacy
that they are otherwise contractually prohibited from having strikes me as
neither.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
         Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
--
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