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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

We have yet to see any decision by any national court anywhere in the world 
that the transfer of WHOIS information from a Registrar to a Registry violates 
any jurisdictional laws.    This has been done for more than a decade in .biz, 
.info, .org, .pro, .coop, .museum, .travel, .tel, .name, .xxx, .mobi, .aero, 
.asia and also in .us and several other ccTLDs.

If someone can find any evidence of the jurisdictional issue, please present it 
to the group.  If not, then I think we have the answer and can move forward.

As I stated on the call, our job is to engage in "fact-based" decision making.  

Thanks.

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 1:51 PM
To: Thick Whois
Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Dangers and risks of thick Whois


Hi,

As I understand it, in a thick whois, the Registrar would be forced to pass all 
that information to the Registry.  At this point they don't need to.  

So the information will then be transferred from one national jurisdiction to 
another.  And those jurisdictions could have a very different treatment of that 
private information.  That jurisdictional shift is the crux of the problem.

To the group: Apologies for making Rick so very angry at me.

avri



On 29 Jan 2013, at 10:39, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> 
> 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