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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 29 Jan 2013, at 09:41, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> Hi Volker,
> 
> I do not believe that institutional domains -- that is, those owned by an 
> incorporated body -- are deserving of privacy. Having said that... I'm 
> generally supportive of the approach -- implemented within the Canadian ccTLD 
> and elsewhere -- that provides significantly greater privacy to personal 
> domains than to institutional ones.

I disagree.  There are institutions, such a battered spouse organizations or 
organizations of gay activists in most of the world that can't afford to have 
their information made public.

One example: I am a member and activist volunteer of APC, Association for 
Progressive Communications - an Internet Human Rights group.  Its chair, who 
used to be the person listed in the WHOIS, has gotten phone calls and email 
death threats based on her WHOIS info, and has submitted statement on that at 
some point - I will try to dig it up.

Another example: Just recently Russia passed rule that makes any publication 
related to gay community or people is considered criminal.  should those 
organization that work on gay issues be barred from protection because the 
country that holds the thick registry does not guarantee protection for 
organization of endangered peoples?  Better they should have the option of 
registering with a registrar in a country that values and protects privacy not 
only for individuals, but for the organizations of endangered users.

avri


> 
> Those registries that are able to make a distinction between personal and 
> organizational domains ought to be allowed to offer greater privacy to the 
> former. But if no distinction is offered, then there should be no special 
> privacy protections.
> 
> - Evan
> 
> 
> 
> On 29 January 2013 12:26, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Evan,
> 
>> 
>> On 29 January 2013 11:19, Don Blumenthal <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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Evan Leibovitch
> Toronto Canada
> Em: evan at telly dot org
> Sk: evanleibovitch
> Tw: el56