Re: [nc-transfer] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal

[Barbara Simons <simons@acm.org>]

I agree that accurate information should be provided for the technical
liaison.  What I'm saying is that a law that makes it a felony to provide
inaccurate information for the domain name holder creates major problems
regarding political speech, shelters for battered women, children who own
their own domain name, etc.  The whois database is an open invitation for
massive privacy invasion of domain name owners (as opposed to technical
contacts).  HR 4640 would make it a felony in the U.S., punishable by up to
5 years in prison, to provide false address information for the owner of a
domain name.  This would be a boon to trademark holders who are eager to
send out large numbers of cease and desist letters, and a blow to people who
care about protecting our privacy.

I didn't mean to start a discussion about HR 4640, though I hope that this
has helped to make our US based members aware of this misguided legislative
proposal. 

Regards,
Barbara

On 6/17/02 5:03 PM, "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> The problem is more than just the submission of a false credential, it is
> the operations of the Registrar with that false credential that compounds
> the problem. I would suggest that an additional requirements such that the
> registrars were required to ping each one of the addresses that their domain
> managers have supplied and any that bounce more than once are flamed, and
> the domain is pulled and held in suspense for an additional 30 days.
> 
> If you have a domain and you don't know whether its up or down in a months
> time then its not too important and well should be flamed.
> 
> Todd Glassey
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
> To: <simons@acm.org>
> Cc: <james.love@cptech.org>; <marc@fuchsia.bijt.net>;
> <nc-transfer@dnso.org>; <discuss@icann-ncc.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 4:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [nc-transfer] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] WLS proposal
> 
> 
>> My proposal was *not* an endorsement of any US legislation.   What I mean
>> by "accurate" whois data is that the person expressing interest in an
>> expired domain has to be a real person, with a real billing address.
>> That is already a requirement in the gTLD registry contracts.  It could be
>> any real person, including a real person who is doing it for someone else.
>>  This is in the context of a one person one chance lottery over expired
>> domains.    If you did not think you could address the one person one
>> chance approach, you could have a lottery among registrars, which are
>> unique.
>>   Jamie
>> 
>> 
>>> Jamie,
>>> What do you mean by "accurate" whois data?  Does this mean that you
>>> support HR 4640, which would make it a felony to provide inaccurate
>>> information, even including address info of the domain name holder?
>>> I'm sure you appreciate the privacy implications of requiring domain
>>> name owners, eg parents who have purchased domain names for their kids,
>>> to provide their physical addresses.
>>> Barbara
>>> P.S.  While it's important that accurate whois information be provided
>>> for the technical contact, I see no compelling reason for providing
>>> accurate address information about the owner of the domain name.