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

[Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>]

It isn't.


On Jan 29, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Don Blumenthal wrote:

> I’m sensing shades of old commercial vs non-commercial use of a domain 
> debates. Why is registration by an institution vs an individual important in 
> and of itself? What does it say about use of the domain, at least in the gTLD 
> space, or reasons to protect Whois privacy or not?
>  
> From: evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Evan Leibovitch
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 12:42 PM
> To: Volker Greimann
> Cc: Don Blumenthal; Amr Elsadr; Thick Whois
> Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Dangers and risks of thick Whois
>  
> Hi Volker,
>  
> I do not believe that institutional domains -- that is, those owned by an 
> incorporated body -- are deserving of privacy. Having said that... I'm 
> generally supportive of the approach -- implemented within the Canadian ccTLD 
> and elsewhere -- that provides significantly greater privacy to personal 
> domains than to institutional ones.
>  
> Those registries that are able to make a distinction between personal and 
> organizational domains ought to be allowed to offer greater privacy to the 
> former. But if no distinction is offered, then there should be no special 
> privacy protections.
>  
> - Evan
>  
>  
> 
> On 29 January 2013 12:26, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Evan,
> 
> 
>  
> On 29 January 2013 11:19, Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>  
> I’ve read and heard many times that individuals should be able to have domain 
> names and still maintain their privacy.
> 
> I agree with this basic premise.
> 
> 
>  
> That's one opinion. Another, said in a previous post by Bob Bruen with which 
> I agree, says:
>  
>   "Individuals can still be anonymous, but the domain owner should not be 
> (IMHO)".
>  
> Does your site setup protect bloggers any better than privacy/proxy services 
> would if they owned domains?
> 
>  
> The setup gives the bloggers as much privacy as they want. They have 
> psudonyms that identify them for repeated comments. They can be contacted by 
> visitors to the site without the visitors knowing their email addresses. And 
> yet, if we were served with a Canadian court order to divulge we would.
>  
> My point, though, is not that my setup is superior -- rather, its mere 
> existence as a counter-example demonstrates that private domain name 
> ownership is not a necessary to protect personal freedom of speech. ICANN 
> conventional wisdom that I have witnessed often assumes that the two must be 
> linked.
>  
> So essentially you (and Bob) are saying a blogger that operates his blog 
> under his own domain name may not protect his own privacy? I believe strongly 
> that the right to personal data privacy does not end with the ownership of a 
> domain name. Sure, a blogger may opt for a blogging service, but most will 
> want their own sites and build their own brands instead of strengthening 
> someone elses.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Volker
> 
> 
>  
> --
> Evan Leibovitch
> Toronto Canada
> Em: evan at telly dot org
> Sk: evanleibovitch
> Tw: el56