Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Dangers and risks of thick Whois

[Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Evan,
> On 29 January 2013 11:19, Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx 
> <mailto:dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
>     I’ve read and heard many times that individuals should be able to
>     have domain names and still maintain their privacy.
I agree with this basic premise.
> That's one opinion. Another, said in a previous post by Bob Bruen with 
> which I agree, says:
> /"Individuals can still be anonymous, but the domain owner should not 
> be (IMHO)"./
>     Does your site setup protect bloggers any better than
>     privacy/proxy services would if they owned domains?
>
>
> The setup gives the bloggers as much privacy as they want. They have 
> psudonyms that identify them for repeated comments. They can be 
> contacted by visitors to the site without the visitors knowing their 
> email addresses. And yet, if we were served with a Canadian court 
> order to divulge we would.
> My point, though, is not that my setup is superior -- rather, its mere 
> existence as a counter-example demonstrates that private domain name 
> ownership is not a necessary to protect personal freedom of speech. 
> ICANN conventional wisdom that I have witnessed often assumes that the 
> two must be linked.
So essentially you (and Bob) are saying a blogger that operates his blog 
under his own domain name may not protect his own privacy? I believe 
strongly that the right to personal data privacy does not end with the 
ownership of a domain name. Sure, a blogger may opt for a blogging 
service, but most will want their own sites and build their own brands 
instead of strengthening someone elses.
Best,

Volker