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

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

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