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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Evan,

Is your point that if people want privacy then they should not get domain  
names?

I am sorry I was not at this morning's meeting. Will listen to call and comment 
further.

The main point is that moving from thin to thick changes the jurisdiction under 
which existing registrant for old gTLD are governed.  Thus individuals, and 
associations of endangered individuals (the users Evan refers  to), would be 
forced to switch from an enlightened privacy scheme such as exists in many 
european countries, especially e.g. the Netherlands, to the relatively privacy 
free rules of the US.

This is also the unfortunate situation that has been forced, without benefit  
of a legitimate policy process, on all new gTLDs.


avri

On 29 Jan 2013, at 07:26, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> On 29 January 2013 07:45, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  
> Apart from agreeing with Frédéric's response, I feel that online anonymity is 
> in some circumstances an important measure that needs to be taken to avoid 
> danger scenarios. It is true that almost all registrant information is 
> publicly accessible despite registering domain names with registrars in 
> countries/jurisdictions with data privacy laws. Being an Egyptian, I have a 
> very personal perspective on the issue of online anonymity and feel that a 
> policy for all existing and future gTLDs registries using "thick" Whois is a 
> step backwards for practicing freedom of expression.
> 
> This raises a common implicit yet unchallenged assumption -- that there is a 
> necessary link between freedom of speech and owning a domain name.
> 
> As someone who runs a site that hosts a number of anonymous bloggers -- none 
> of whom requires their own domain name in order to protect their anonymity -- 
> I am unconvinced of that assumed link. Furthermore, privacy is not synonymous 
> with anonymity.
> 
> - Evan