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

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

Expectations are all quite OK.  I have them too.  Would I could tell all of
mine here.

Here's the thing. We know folks sign contracts time and again without
reading that pesky fine pint, the sneaky little bastards!  So maybe what
might be helpful here is if we commit to educating registrants of their
plain contractual obligations.

Since 3 or so years ago, the ALAC has encouraged just that via a
Registrants Right and Responsibilities  WG.  [Yeah, some of us were quite
seized of the 'responsibilities' bit, too.] That agenda is outlined and
publicly espoused in its charter.  We can go to tape for the details.

- Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>