Reply to "Public Domain Registration Information" by J. Packer

[Frederick Gosse <fredgosse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello, 
 
This is a response to the comment submitted by a J. Packer which can be found 
at http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ppsai-initial-05may15/msg11295.html 
 
Mr. Pakcer writes: 
>There is no need to have domain registrations "private". Too 
>many times individuals use that to "hide" their identity to 
>use domain sites for fraudulent reasons. Let's not give them 
>any help! 
 
Perhaps Mr. Packer personally doesn't have a need for private domain 
registrations, but that does not mean all other people on this planet should go 
without domain privacy. 
 
His claim that "too many individuals" use private domain registrations for 
"fraudulent reasons" begs the question "What is too many?". Mr. Packers tries 
to give the impression that a significant part of all private domain 
registrations were initiated by criminals. However, only a tiny part of all 
domain registrations, private or public, were initiated by criminals. If the 
majority or an otherwise significant part of all private registrations were 
criminal in nature, privacy providers and Registrars would have long ago ceased 
to offer these services. It would simply not be profitable for privacy 
providers and registrars to offer private registrations if that meant they'd 
get flooded with complaints about criminals activities. The fact that privacy 
providers and registrars CAN and are willing to offer private domain 
registrations is proof that the abuse or the degree of abuse that Mr. Packers 
tries to insinuate simply does not exist. 
 
Also, no one is asking Mr. Packer or even ICANN for help. We are simply asking 
to be left alone. We already have a solution for the Whois problem. We simply 
ask that you do not sabotage our solution. 
 
Mr. Packer continues: 
>It was only when registrars saw an "opportunity" to gain 
>additional revenue (as they charge for privacy, which should 
>tell you right away it is not a "right") for this "privacy" 
>service. 
 
Mr. Packer is forgetting that registrars don't force their users to buy privacy 
services. Those registrars are responding to an existing demand. Their users 
are aware of the dangers related to public domain registrations and those users 
are willing to pay for a way to protect themselves from those dangers. 
 
Mr. Packer further claims that we see "less fraud being committed using a .us 
domain" because the .us Registry doesn't allow private registrations. What Mr. 
Packer doesn't mention is that there are merely 1,717,586 .us domains 
registered compared to 5,119,332 .info domains, 14,856,120 .net domains and 
117,656,681 .com domains. Of course the number of fraud cases connected to a 
.us domain will be smaller because the total number of .us registrations is 
also smaller. Mr. Packer also doesn't take into account other factor such as 
price. 
 
Mr. Packers comments don't make any sense at all. On the one hand he sees a 
need for privacy as he did not use his full name. On the other hand he 
unsuccessfully tries to equate a need for privacy with a desire to commit 
criminal acts. On the one hand he recommends that individuals who want privacy 
go rent a P/O box. On the other hand he fails to see that the privacy service 
provided by registrars is simply a modernized version of the P/O box. 
 
Please disregards MR. Packers comments and please do not sabotage our domain 
privacy.
 
Regards, 
Fred