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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

.CAT recently received an exemption to selectively display Whois 
information in accordance with local laws 
(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1.2). 
My assumption is that the registrar still provides all of the info 
but the registry makes it selectively available.
Presumably if some registrar had a similar requirement, they could 
petition ICANN to alter the terms for them (there is currently an 
effort underway to allow them to do that before they are found in 
violation. The ALAC makes reference to this in its answers to the WG questions.
However, this subject raises another issue. One of the considerations 
is whether Registrars need to still make Whois info available if all 
registries were thick. It would be interesting to understand exactly 
how registrars currently display whois information for .cat 
registrations. What is their mechanism for ensuring that only the 
data allowed by .cat goes out (presumably what they do is no 
different than how they handle ccTLD with varying amounts of Whois 
data to display).
Alan

At 29/01/2013 03:28 PM, Ray Fassett wrote:

> I am pretty sure .CAT is an example of a thick registry that does not
> broadcast to the world all thick data it receives from registrars.  Will
> they need to, such as in the case of a consensus policy requiring them to?
> I don't know.
>
> Ray
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:29 PM
> To: Thick Whois
> Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Dangers and risks of thick Whois
>
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >