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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree on all of these principles, but do not understand the 
relevance to thick/thin Whois model. Why does the registry holding a 
copy of the data WHICH IS ALREADY PUBLICLY AVAILABLE alter anything? 
Privacy is still protected by the original registrar or proxy 
provider based on the laws in their jurisdiction.
An organization that works on gay issues can register in a country 
and with a registrar that will hide their identity under multiple 
levels and will even defend a UDRP if necessary, without unmasking 
the original registrant". All that will show up in the registry 
database is the top proxy provider - exactly what the registrar would 
show in its Whois output in the thin model.
I do note that as alluded to above, that most proxy providers will 
unmask the original registrant as soon as a UDRP is filed, even if 
that UDRP might have little merit. And even if the UDRP is lost, the 
original registrant's name will be published in the public report on 
the UDRP. I have never heard of anyone fighting to change that rule!
Alan

At 29/01/2013 01:01 PM, Avri Doria wrote:


> 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