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

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

But you have made some assumptions about expectations which are not backed by 
evidence.  Looking at the legal agreements for the major registrars worldwide, 
you will see the appropriate consents in the Ts and Cs for transmitting that 
information.  Those consents are TLD agnostic.  

Also, this is no different than the situation in .org in 2003 and no complaints 
to our knowledge was received.

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 2:39 PM
To: Thick Whois
Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Dangers and risks of thick Whois


Hi,

You miss my point.

1. different jurisdictions have different privacy protections.
2. when a registrant registrars in one jurisdiction they have expectations 
about how their data will be treated.
3. if that data is exported to another jurisdiction, it abridges that 
expectation.

These are facts.  
Not FUD.

avri



On 29 Jan 2013, at 11:30, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>