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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Does this mean that registrars won't need to give true and full personal 
details to the registries under a thick whois regime?  Or that the registry 
won't need to broadcast this information to the world?

avri



On 29 Jan 2013, at 11:18, Ray Fassett wrote:

> The registry can only republish the registrant information provided to it by
> the sponsoring registrar of the registration, which I think is to Alan's
> point of the registry "holding a copy".  This is true in the thick registry
> model in all cases.
> 
> Ray
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 1:40 PM
> To: Avri Doria; Thick Whois
> Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Dangers and risks of thick Whois
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>